Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS (STREET AND ROAD) AND TRACKLESS TROFLEY UNDERTAKINGS.

Return ordered,
of Street and Road Tramways and Light Railways authorised by Act or Order, showing the amount of capital authorised, paid up, and expended; the length of line authorised and the length open for traffic, and number of cars owned at the 31st day of December 1925, in respect of companies, and the end of the financial year 1925–26 in respect of local authorities; the gross receipts, working expenditure, net receipts, and appropriations, the transactions in

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Date when Closure moved, and by whom.
Question before House or Committee when moved.
Whether in House or Committee.
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman.
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.

and (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:—


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.


Date when Closure moved, and by whom.
Question before Committee when moved.
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Chairman.
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.
Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.


(in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 204, of Session 1921–25)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Return ordered,
of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1926:
Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which

reserve funds, and traffic and operating statistics for the year ended on the foregoing dates, respectively (in continuation of Return to an Order of the House, dated the 12th day of May 1925); also similar particulars relating to Trackless Trofley Undertakings."—[Colonel Ashley.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Return ordered,
showing with reference to Session 1926, (1) the total number of days on which the House sat; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 203, of Session 1924–25)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 26).

Return ordered,
respecting application of Standing Order No. 26 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1926, (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following beads:—

in Session 1926 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by
each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:
Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1926, have been referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member was summoned and on which each Member atended:
And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional, Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.003, of Session 1924–25)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

PUBLIC BILLS.

Return ordered,
of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1926; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House, but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords, but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.004, of Session 1924–25)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Return ordered,
of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1926, with the total number of signatures in each Session (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.005, of Session 1924–25)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

SELECT COMMITTEES.

Return ordered,
of the number of Select Committees appointed in Session 1926 and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such
Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.001, of Session 1924–5)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

Return ordered,
of the days on which the House sat in Session, 1926, stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after eleven p.m.; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

STANDING COMMITTEES.

Return ordered,
for Session 1926 of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the five Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47, showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of days on which each Committee sat, and the names of all Bills considered by a Standing Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing, in the case of each Bill, the particular Standing Committee by whom it was considered, the number of days on which it was considered by the Committee, and the number of Members present on each of those days (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.002, of Session 1924–25)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EMPIRE FILMS.

Colonel DAY: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the proposal to introduce legislation with regard to the blind booking of films; and, if so, whether the Government intend to introduce a Bill covering this subject?

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 3.
asked whether he is able to give an approximate
date for the introduction of the Bill which is intended to carry out the recommendations of the Imperial Conference in regard to British and Empire films?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The whole subject of Empire film production is under consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, with regard to the blind booking of films, whether the policy adopted by other Departments is entirely at variance with the policy he has put before the House?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not aware that any policy is being adopted by other Departments. At the proper time, when the Cabinet has considered the matter, I will, of course, make a statement.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the policy of the Admiralty is to have their films blind booked at the present time?

GERMAN BATHS (IMPORTS).

Sir C. RAWSON: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many German baths have been imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the past 12 months?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: During the 12 months ended 31st October, 1926, the aggregate weight of "iron or steel baths (porcelain enamelled or other finish)" imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and registered as consigned from Germany, amounted to 6,426 tons. Baths are not entered in the trade returns by number.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Are not these baths included in the returns of enamel hoflowware?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. There is an entry in the trade returns of steel and iron baths, "porcelain or other finish."

HIGHLAND AND SHETLAND WOOFLEN GOODS.

Mr. MACKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 5.
asked the President of the Board of
Trade whether he will include Highland tweeds under the scheme for advertising Empire products?

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will include Shetland hand-knitted woollen goods in the scheme for advertising Empire products?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for COLONIAL AFFAIRS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have been asked to reply to these questions. My right hon. Friend has not contemplated that expenditure on the advertisement of manufactured articles of the kind referred to should be met from the Empire Marketing Fund.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: May I ask, why not?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Because the terms of reference to the Marketing Committee is limited to foodstuffs.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: May I ask the Under-Secretary to set a good example to his colleagues in the Government by wearing occasionally a Harris tweed suit?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I will point out that the Empire Marketing Fund is not limited to advertising goods produced in the Dominions, but also to produce produced in the United Kingdom.

Sir HARRY BRITTA1N: If it is limited to the pushing of foodstuffs, will the Under-Secretary push the sale of haggis in the Dominions?

MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.

Mr. KELLY: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the names of the Joint Industrial Councils and Interim Industrial Reconstruction Committees who forwarded Resolutions of support of the Merchandise Marks (Imported Goods) Bill?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The five separate Joint Industrial Councils or Interim Reconstruction Committees referred to in the answer given to the hon. Member on the 1st December are the National Council of the Pottery Industry, the Joint Industrial Councils for the glove-making industry, for the printing and allied trades, and for the needle, fish-hook and allied trades, and the Gas Mantle Interim Industrial Reconstruction Committee.

Mr. KELLY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the number of Joint Industrial Councils in the country?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I cannot tell the hon. Member that, but I can tell him this, that the Resolution I quoted in my speech was passed by the Association of Industrial Councils, which I understand represents all of them, whatever their number.

Mr. KELLY: May I ask whether, in forwarding that Resolution to the right hon. Gentleman, the Association intimated that it was carried with unanimity?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Speaking from memory, I do not remember whether there was any such intimation, but I gather that the Resolution must have been carried, otherwise it would not have been sent.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of imports, exports, and re-exports of all commodities subject to safeguarding of industry and ad valorem duties for the first 10 months of 1924 and 1926, respectively?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am having a statement prepared, and will send it to the hon. Member as soon as it is ready. I ought to add that any statistics covering the prolonged period of the coal stoppage obviously relate to an abnormal period.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the statement will indicate at what period safeguarding ceased in 1924?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I can add that to the statement. I was not proposing to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT as I do not think any statistics which cover the absolutely abnormal period of trade depression in this country during the past seven months of the coal stoppage are of the least value as information whatever.

FUEL OIL (IMPORTS).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the coal equivalent of the fuel oil imported into
this country during the coal dispute and during the corresponding period of last year?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Approximately 277 million gallons (about 1·1 million tons) of fuel oil were registered as imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the period from 1st May to 30th November, 1926, inclusive, compared with 198 million gallons (about 0.79 million tons) in the corresponding period of 1925.
With regard to coal-equivalents, I would refer to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend on 24th March last year, a copy of which I am sending him.

SOAP (PRICES).

Mr. HAYES: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the retail prices of soaps; whether he is aware that the increase in retail prices of soaps, 63 per cent. fatty acids, is 133 per cent. increase over pre-War price, whereas the increase in cost of raw materials is less than 8 per cent.; and whether he proposes to take any action to check profiteering in this commodity?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that the retail price of household yellow soap is to-day on the average about 70 per cent. greater than in July, 1914. The prices of raw materials have risen to a less extent, although more than is suggested in the question; but there are other factors entering into the cost of production, and I do not think the position is such as to necessitate special action on the part of the Government. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that the price of soap has fallen greatly, since the high level reached immediately after the War.

Mr. HAYES: In view of the fact that this information is supplied by the trade, and in view of the importance of the question to the trading community and the householder, will the right hon. Gentleman form a tribunal to inquire into this particular form of profiteering?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think that is necessary. There has been a fall in price since 1920, from 11d. to 6d. I am not saying whether it is sufficient or not, but I am sure of this, that to have
a large number of inquiries instituted into trades at the present time is not the best way to assist trade.

Mr. HAYES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price has actually increased in the last few weeks?

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: As the right hon. Gentleman has sanctioned inquiries having for their purpose the rising of prices, why will he not sanction an inquiry having for its purpose the lowering of prices?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a different point.

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the International Conference on Oil Pollution of Navigable Waters?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As stated in answer to the hon. Member for Widnes on 29th November, the Government have accepted in principle the recommendations of the International Conference on Oil Pollution, but effect cannot be given to these recommendations until they are embodied in an International Convention and the Convention is put into force by legislation.

Captain GARRO-JONES: My question was intended to elicit the information as to whether the Government have taken any steps to embody them in legislation in co-operation with the other Governments concerned?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. We cannot do that. The hon. and gallant Member does not seem to be aware that the Conference we attended was summoned by the Government of the United States, and according to ordinary diplomatic courtesy it is for the Government of the United States to secure the adhesion of other countries. We have already intimated our acceptance of the principle to the United States.

Sir JOSEPH NAIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to assist the party opposite to make an investigation into the pollution of political waters?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

ERRIBOF ESTATE (SALE).

Major Sir AREHIBALD SINCLAIR: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the furniture in the shooting lodge at Erribol is to be taken over at valuation by the purchaser; and, if so, by whom it is to be valued?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The furniture in the lodge at Erribof has been taken over at valuation by the purchaser; the valuer was Mr. F. Thomson, Braes of Enzic, Portgordon, who was the sole arbiter for the valuations of the sheep stock and others to be taken over by the purchaser of the estate.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is there any precedent for a sheep farmer valuing the furniture in a shooting lodge. Is it not the fact that when the Scottish Board of Agriculture bought this property the sheep farmer who was carrying out the valuation declined to act?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware of the facts, but obviously an arbitrator was agreed upon between the parties.

Mr. MAXTON: Is there any foundation for the belief very prevalent among the Scottish population that this whole transaction is nothing but a barefaced scandal?

Sir J. GILMOUR: There is no ground for a supposition of that kind.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman now in possession of the arbiter's report, and, if so, will he take steps to have it laid on the Table of the House?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have already answered that question. I will supply the House with all the information that I receive.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman got the report yet?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, I have not got the full details.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent by the Board of Agriculture, while the estate of Erribof was in their possession, on drainage, permanent improvements, and manures; and whether
the Board of Agriculture are to receive the usual valuations at outgoing for these?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is as follows: On drainage, £415 10s. 6d.; on permanent improvements, £670 16s. 10d.; on manures, £478 3s. 9d.; the two former amounts include expenditure on necessary repairs. The purchase price is an inclusive price, and it is not usual for items of the character referred to in the question to be valued apart from the purchase price in the case of the sale of a property which has been in the occupation of the seller.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Surely it is the case in all sales of property that almost invariably there is compensation paid for improvements?

Sir J. NAIL: Will the history of this example of the public ownership of land be circulated for the information of hon. Members opposite?

ARMADALE ESTATE.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of what claims, other than the difference between a Martinmas and a Whit-Sunday valuation, the sum of £1,000 was paid by the Board of Agriculture to the way-going tenant at Armadale in 1919?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No detailed claim was submitted by the tenant, but in negotiations for settlement and in payment consideration was given to the fact that he could competently claim for loss of profits and for loss due to deprivation of opportunity to build up his transferable stock to full numbers.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Does not that mean that the whole of the £1,000 was paid for the difference between the Martinmas and Whit-Sunday valuation?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; not entirely. There were other material considerations.

HOUSING (STEEL CONSTRUCTION).

Colonel CROOKSHANK: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the inclusive contract prices being paid by the Second Scottish National Housing
Company for 1,000 Weir, 500 Cowieson, and 500 Atholl type houses respectively, prices to include foundations but not land, drainage and fencing?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I assume that what is desired is the price per house, which works out at approximately £415 each for Weir and Cowieson houses and £431 for Atholl houses. These prices do not include the cost of land, sewers, or fencing, nor do they include the cost of roads, transport, or administrative charges, particulars of which are not yet available.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: May I assume, in view of the cheaper cost of the Atholl houses for the same accommodation, that efforts will be made to further the erection of Atholl houses?

Mr. SPEAKER: A question of policy arises there.

Mr. JOHNSTON (for Mr. KIRK-WOOD): 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of complaints by inmates that the deafening between Weir houses is bad, he will state what the party walls are composed of and the thickness of the substance employed?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware that complaints have been made by tenants that the deafening between Weir houses is bad. The party wall is 12 inches thick, composed of two standard partitions of varying thickness, and a cavity between the partitions in which are placed 2-inch thick fire-resisting slabs or ⅜-inch celotex sheeting fixed to rough boarding. The room side of partitions is covered with 3–16th inch beaver boarding.

Mr. JOHNSTON (for Mr. KIRK-WOOD): 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the houses erected by Messrs. Weir at Dundee, for the Second National Housing Company, have proved satisfactory to the tenants; whether there have been complaints and, if so, of what nature and extent; and whether any steps have been taken to prevent recurrence of the causes of complaint?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am advised that the houses in question have proved satisfactory to the tenants generally, and that such complaints as have been made have reference to minor defects not unusual in newly-completed houses, such as down-draught, defective hot-water supply, rain driving under entrance
doors, and leaks. These complaints affect only a small proportion of the houses, and steps have been and are being taken to remove all causes of complaint, and to prevent a recurrence of the defects disclosed.

Mr. JOHNSTON (for Mr. KIRK-WOOD): 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that chimneys on Weir houses in Linlithgow and Robroyston have been blown down; and if he can state the number?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware of Weir houses erected in Linlithgow. A number have been erected in various sites in the County of Linlithgow, and if the hon. Member has any of these in mind, I shall be glad to have inquiry made, if he will inform me of the name of the particular site. As regards Robroyston, I am informed that during a gale last month 20 chimneys of unoccupied Weir houses, newly erected or in course of erection by the Scottish National Housing Company, were blown down.

ORKNEY AND SHETLAND (SMALL HOLDINGS).

Sir R. HAMILTON: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of Crofters in Orkney and Shetland, respectively, who have purchased their Crofts since the War and the number of smallholders remaining as tenants?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not in a position to furnish the information asked for by the hon. Member.

HERRING (EXPORTS).

Sir R. HAMILTON: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of barrels of herring exported from Scotland to Hamburg and the Baltic ports during 1926, and the number remaining on hand; and the weight of freshed herring exported to Hamburg for the same period?

Sir J. GILMOUR: 143,005 barrels of cured herrings have been exported from Scotland this year up to the end of November to Hamburg and 707,642 barrels to Baltic ports; 39,464 barrels remain on hand; 325,388 cwts. of herrings have been exported fresh to Altona for Hamburg during the period mentioned.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (AFFORESTATION).

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 43.
asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as repre-
senting the Forestry Commissioners, whether his Department is investigating or, if not, whether it will investigate the possibilities of afforestation on peat lands in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland?

Sir LEOFIN FORESTIER-WALKER (Forestry Commissioner): The Forestry Commissioners are already planting in the Highlands on amenable peat areas. There is no line of research to which they attach more importance than the investigation of peat formations, and investigations on an extensive scale are being prosecuted both in the field and in the laboratory. With regard to the Islands of Scotland, the Commissioners are planting in Mull and are pursuing inquiries in Skye. Whilst the peat problem exists on the Islands as well as in the Highlands, there are additional difficulties to planting schemes in view of extreme exposure and the allocation of land amongst Crofters.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Will my hon. Friend do me the favour of making investigations in the Outer Hebrides?

Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: We are, as a matter of fact, making investigations now, but, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, we are anxious to deal first with those lands which are nearest markets and most suitable for planting.

Mr. J. HUDSON: Are these inquiries into the possible use of peat lands, confined to Scotland or are the peat lands in the Pennines also included in the inquiry?

Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: The investigations are intended to deal with peat lands generally in England, Scotland and Wales.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: How many acres have already been planted?

Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: That question was asked on Thursday last.

SMALL HOLDINGS, SLEAT.

Colonel DAY (for Mr. N. MACLEAN): 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much land in the Parish of Sleat was available for small holdings when the Board of Agriculture was formed; whether any additional land (has been obtained since; and why, If land was available, no offer of such land
was made to the 32 applicants for small holdings and 68 applicants for enlargements?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No land belonging to the Government was available for small holdings in the Parish of Sleat when the Board of Agriculture was formed, and none has since been acquired. It is not practicable to give the acreage of land belonging to other owners which was available and suitable for the constitution of small hodings at the time referred to. The requirements of this district were less urgent than those of other districts, but, as I informed the hon. Member on the 6th and 8th December, the Board of Agriculture are at present in negotiation for a scheme of settlement on a farm in the Parish of Sleat, and all the ex-service applicants in that parish have already been afforded an opportunity of applying for holdings in other parishes in Skye.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the size of the farm for which the Board are in negotiation?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

MINERS' HOURS.

Mr. PALING: 24.
asked the Secretary for Mines the approximate number of miners who have returned to work on an eight hours', seven and a half hours', and a seven hours' day, respectively?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): On the 4th December, the latest date for which I have figures, the numbers of workpeople employed on the basis of a seven and a-half hour and an eight hour underground working day were respectively about 265,550 and 456,160. So far as these figures relate to Northumberland and Durham, where the hewers are on a seven and a-half basis and the other underground workers on eight, they are necessarily estimates. I believe that a few pits in different districts are still working seven hours, but I have no information on which I could estimate the extent to which the figures that I have given should be modified on this account.

Mr. PALING: Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge of any case where the hours put up by the owners have been subsequently decreased, as a result of negotiations between the owners and the men?

Colonel LANE FOX: I cannot say without notice.

EMPLOYMENT OF BOYS, DURHAM.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 25.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will call for a return of the times fixed for the commencing and ending of the various shifts for boys employed at the various pits in the County of Durham between the ages of 14 to 18 years, together with the number of hours to be worked by such boys?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir, I have no power to do more than enforce the laws which Parliament has made, and I have no reason to believe that they are not being observed.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that boys of fourteen years of age are being taken into the pits at midnight, and are "on" until three or four o'clock—that they are in the pit until three o'clock next morning? Does he not think it a scandal to British manhood, and that something ought to be done to protect these boys?

Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that the Minister has not power to ask for a return?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir. What I said was that I did not think it necessary. If the hon. Gentleman will tell me that the law is not being properly administered or is being broken, it is my duty to see that it is carried out.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was no necessity for any law prior to this great change that has been made, and that now this injustice is being perpetrated on these boys? Ought there not to be some inquiry into the matter, in the interests of justice?

Colonel LANE FOX: I will make inquiries if the hon. Gentleman will help me by telling me what is wrong and where the law has been broken.

Mr. BATEY: I am not suggesting that the law is broken. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that young boys between 14 and 18, who formerly finished at four in the afternoon, are not now finishing until ten minutes to nine at night? Does he think that is a proper state of affairs?

DIRECTORS (FEES AND EXPENSES).

Mr. POTTS: 26.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that coal-mining statistics results show management, salaries, insurances, repairs, office and general expenses, depreciation, etc., to have cost upwards of £29,000,000 for the year 1925, and no separate information as to cost of directors' fees and expenses; and will he obtain information as to the amount of directors' fees and expenses separate for 1925 and the quarter ending March, 1926. having regard to the State subsidy paid during such period?

Colonel LANE FOX: I am aware that the facts are as stated by the hon. Member. But in view of the statement of the Royal Commission with reference to directors' fees, that "their amount is negligible—less than ½d. per ton," I do not think that the collection of further information on this subject would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. POTTS: Will the right hon. Gentleman procure the information? I am not asking about a half-penny per ton; I am asking about the amount paid in fees to directors.

Colonel LANE FOX: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should take the trouble to read the Report of the Royal Commission, in which he will get a great deal of information that is very useful.

Mr. POTTS: Is the Minister aware that some of the directors, having regard to the number of companies that they are interested in as directors, receive £10,000 a year?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir.

Captain GARRO-JONES: How long is the right hon. Gentleman going to rely on rejecting the findings of the Royal Commission in cases where he dislikes them, and accepting the findings when they suit him?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD SURFACES.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 27.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the dangerous surfaces to be found on many parts of our main and secondary country roads, he will recommend to county councils the use of a uniform and safe road surface which will be suitable for horses and beasts as well as motor-driven vehicles?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I see no possibility of any one particular material being singled out, as being exclusively suitable for all main and secondary roads, seeing how wide are the variations in local conditions, local resources and local traffic.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: Can my right hon. Friend not employ scientific research to provide us with a safe surface for all kinds of traffic in the near future? Does he not think that the use of British granite will, to some extent, solve this problem?

Colonel ASHLEY: The matter is being investigated, but, as my hon. Friend knows, it is a very difficult thing to provide a surface suitable for all classes of traffic.

Sir C. RAWSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the definition of the latest section of the road to Romsey as "like a butter slide"?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir; I do not.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether experiments are being undertaken by his Department in this matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: Oh, yes, Sir; very extensive experiments have been undertaken ever since the Bill of last year gave us power to conduct such experiments.

CYCLES (PEAR LIGHTS).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport if, when considering the introduction of the use of reflectors or of rear-lights on foot bicycles, he will have experiments made so as to
ascertain the difficulties of keeping a rear light burning when travelling on a windy night or when traversing bumpy roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member may rest assured that before I make any Regulations relating to the lighting of bicycles, I shall take the necessary steps to satisfy myself that such Regulations are technically practicable.

Sir FRANK MEYER: Is it not a fact that a largely increased number of cyclists show their common sense by fixing rear lights?

Colonel ASHLEY: I hope so, but I Personally sec little evidence of it.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Has the consideration given to this matter by the right hon. Gentleman's Department for the last two years led to any useful result?

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that it is impossible to legislate for everything at the same time. My Department has had one Bill already dealing with other matters, and I hope to have a Bill next year to deal with these matters.

SHERVA ROAD, DUMBARTONSHIRE.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the Sherva road from Kilsyth Road to the village of Twechar, Dumbartonshire, has been closed by the county council's order to motor omnibuses carrying more than 14 passengers; that there are between 2,000 and 3,000 people living in Twechar; that they have no railway facilities; and that the order is to last for a period of five years; and whether, under the circumstances, he will have the state of the Sherva road re-examined with a view to making it fit to bear the traffic required by a growing industrial population?

Colonel ASHLEY: The Order to which the hon. Member refers was made by me on the application of the County Council of Dumbarton after a public inquiry. Before making the Order I satisfied myself that the use of the road by larger passenger-carrying vehicles was dangerous and that the widening of the road to carry such traffic was unjustifiable on the ground of its cost.

Mr. JOHNSTON: is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that in the allocation of public funds for expenditure on the roads of Dumbartonshire the money is equitably spent as between the roads in working-class areas and the roads in the residential areas?

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, I am, most decidedly. I would point out that in this case it is quite possible to have a service of 14-seater omnibuses on this road, or, alternatively, to have a service of larger omnibuses about a mile and a-half to the north.

ONE-WAY TRAFFIC STREETS (PEDESTRIANS).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the danger to pedestrians in one-way traffic streets of vehicles travelling on one side of the thoroughfare suddenly crossing over to the other; and whether he will take steps to prohibit this practice?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): It is an essential part of the "one-way" traffic system that drivers should pass from one side of the thoroughfare to the other in order that they may reach their objectives. I do not know that the practice involved any special degree of danger, if carried out with reasonable care, and the police have been instructed to take action where any instance of dangerous driving is observed.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

PILLAR BOXES (ILLUMINATION).

Colonel DAY: 30.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, with a view to avoiding misposting in the East Central and West Central districts of London, he will cause pillar boxes containing separate receptacles for London and abroad and country, respectively, to be so illuminated as to facilitate posting in the correct receptacle?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I can see no justification for the heavy expense involved in providing and maintaining special lights on the pillar boxes in question, the positions of which were chosen with a view to adequate illumination by
existing street lamps. But I shall be happy to investigate any case in which the hon. Member finds the existing illumination inadequate.

Colonel DAY: How many letters of this type are mis-posted every week and what is the delay due to mis-posting?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: A very large number, something approaching one million.

Colonel DAY: What is the delay due to mis-posting?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It varies according to the destination of the letter. In some eases it may be as much as 24 hours.

FACILITIES (TALYWAIN).

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 31.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the 4bersychan Urban District Council and other bodies have approached the postmaster at Pontypool with a view to opening a sub-post office at Waterloo, Talywain; whether he is aware that there are 2,000 inhabitants in this village and that they have to walk over a mile to send a telegram or get on the telephone; and whether he will take any action in the matter?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Applications have been received for the opening of a sub-post office in the locality to which the hon. Member refers. There are already three post offices within a radius of half a mile, at two of which telegraph and telephone business is transacted, and I do not consider that the circumstances warrant the establishment of an additional office.

TELEPHONE CIRCUITS DISCONTINUED.

Sir C. RAWSON: 32.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in consequence of the Betting Tax a certain sporting newsagency has discontinued the use of 80 telephone circuits, involving a loss to the revenue of approximately £120 a week, and the discharge of 40 employés who will be thrown on the unemployment market; and whether he will publish at. the end of a quarter or a half year from the operation of such duty particulars of such total losses as he is able to trace which are attributable to the same cause?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am aware that a sporting newsagency has given notice to terminate its agreement for 79 circuits. In the normal course some 26,000 agreements are terminated every quarter for reasons which are not recorded. I am not prepared to authorise the labour which would be required to ascertain and classify the causes of cessations.

POST-FRANKING MACHINES.

Colonel DAY: 33.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of officially recognised post-franking machines approved by his Department?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Three distinct types of machine have been licensed.

Colonel DAY: Are these machines made in Great Britain?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I should like notice of the question; I think two are British and one is American.

TELEPHONE SERVICE (INTERRUPTION).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 35.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, when telephones are cut off by the Post Office, owing to no fault of the subscriber, he will consider making some arrangement to deduct from the annual subscription a sum proportionate to the loss of the service?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It is not possible to ensure complete immunity from faults, and the most that can be undertaken is restoration of communication as promptly as possible. Telephone charges have been fixed on the basis that no rebate would be made in respect of short interruptions; and I do not consider that the interests of subscribers as a whole would be served by a change of procedure.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: 34.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that various societies have innocently purchased National Savings Certificates in the name of their members, and have forfeited the interest on their investment because these certificates may only be held by individuals for themselves; and
whether he will take steps to warn future purchasers of this restriction by a suitable notice on the application forms and certificates?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Very few cases of the kind have come under notice. I have no power to pay interest on such investments. The space on the certificates is restricted and it is only possible to print on them the principal conditions regarding purchase. The Regulations are clearly stated on page 130 of the Post Office Guide, the recognised channel for conveying to the public information regarding Post Office business, and in various pamphlets, issued by the National Savings Committee; and I scarcely think that any additional measures are necessary.

Mr. PETO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Post Office Guide consists of 750 pages and costs one shilling? Is it reasonable to expect every small investor to purchase a copy and is that the sort of prospectuses we shall have when we have nationalised industry?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In reply to the last part of the question there are leaflets issued by the National War Savings Committee. As regards the first part, there is a copy of the Post Office Guide available in every Post Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (STAFF).

Mr. ROBINSON: 36.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether it. is proposed to effect any economy in the finance branch of the Ministry of Pensions in view of the large number of officers of the rank of higher executive and above in that branch and the falling Volume of work in the Ministry of Pensions?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): Staff economies which are justified by the fall in the Volume of work will be effected not only in the finance branch but in other branches of the Ministry.

Mr. DENNISON: 37.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he intends to make further appointments of established officers in substitution for officers of the
P class as area and deputy chief area officers; and what is the estimated extra cost to public funds of this policy during the current financial year?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: It may be necessary from time to time to effect transfers of established officers to other posts in the Ministry as the fall in the Volume of work may necessitate, and it is not administratively possible to exclude area offices from the field of consideration for such transfers. There is no additional charge on public funds involved in the appointments to which the hon. Member refers, the established officers mentioned haying become available for appointment in area offices in consequence of savings effected in other branches of the Ministry.

Mr. DENNISON: 38.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, seeing that the established officers of the rank of higher executive and above, appointed as area and deputy-chief area officers at an increased cost to the public purse, are without experience of area office administration, he will say what steps he is taking to ensure that their inexperience shall not act adversely to the interests of the widows, dependants, and disabled men who have to attend area offices for advice and assistance?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: As I have already informed the hon. Member, these appointments do not involve any additional charge on public funds. No established officer without experience of local administration has been appointed as chief area office or deputy chief area officer, and the hon. Member need have no fear that there will be any diminution in the care and attention devoted to the interests of the ex-service man and his dependants.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPORTATION ORDERS.

Captain FAIRFAX: 40.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to a recent case in which a magistrate complained that three deportation orders had been made against an individual, but he was still in this country; and what steps he proposes to take, by legislation or otherwise, to make these orders effective against persons who are expert in technical evasions?

Captain HACKING: If this question relates to Hyman Marlick Cohen I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall).

Oral Answers to Questions — PARKHURST PRISON.

Mr. HAYES: 41.
asked the Home Secretary how many convicts have been punished in connection with the recent disturbances at Parkhurst Prison; how many have been subjected to confinement in punishment cells and for what periods; and what is the estimated cost of the damage done during the disturbances?

Captain HACKING: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys J. Davies) and printed in the Debates of 8th instant. There have been no disturbances; nothing more than minor breaches of discipline such as may occasioNally occur among convicts. On 24th and 25th November three convicts broke glass or equipment; total estimated damage, £5 5s. 1½d.; on the latter occasion 10 convicts shouted from their cells. Seven of these convicts were awarded close confinement—six for three days, one for 28 days. One convict is still to come before the Board of Visitors.

Mr. HAYES: 42.
asked the Home Secretary on what grounds educational facilities have been withdrawn from a large number of the inmates of Parkhurst convict prison; and why modifications have been made in relation to the educational lectures give in the prison?

Captain HACKING: Attendance at educational lectures is not being allowed to convicts who are unlikely to benefit educatioNaily or are ineligible under prison regulations.

Mr. HAYES: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say why concerts have been discontinued at this establishment?

Captain HACKING: The original question was in regard to educational facilities. I must have notice of the other question.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Who is to determine whether a man is likely to benefit by education?

Captain HACKING: That is very largely in the hands of the prison governor but it is very obvious in many cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA COLONY (NATIVE LABOUR).

Mr. W. BAKER: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the acting Colonial Secretary in Kenya Colony, at the October Session of the Legislative Assembly, stated that administrative officers in Kenya had been definitely instructed to do their utmost to promote the flow of labour from the reserves; and whether this is in accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have seen a Press report of the statement referred to, which was quoted in the recent Debate on the Palestine and East Africa Loans (Guarantee) Bill, but my right hon. Friend does not interpret it in a sense contrary to the assurances then given by him in recent Debates during the passage of the Bill.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is it not a fact that there are no Employment Exchanges in the reserves in East Africa, that there is a very large number of natives doing no work, that coffee crops are rotting, and that, therefore, it is desirable to give the natives encouragement to earn a wage where possible?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is true that there are no Employment Exchanges, and that the machinery for recruiting labour in these territories, except for purely Government services, is entirely in the hands of private recruiting agents, but the whole matter is under investigation, and the question of issuing definite orders to District Commissioners' staffs in the East African Protectorate in regard to this matter is under consideration.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Can copies of these instructions be obtained and placed in the Library?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The only one that has been approved so far is the instruction in regard to the duties of District Commissioners in connection with labour for Tanganyika Territory, and I can let anybody have a copy of that, but the Nyasaland, Kenya, and other drafts
are still under review, and when all are complete I will place copies in the Library.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRALIA (TARIFF).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether anything was said by the representative of Australia at the recent Imperial Conference as to the intention of the Australian Government to increase the existing tariff?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been asked to reply to this question. The answer is in the negative.

Sir W. DAVISON: Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the statement made by the Australian Trade Representative to the United States of America to the contrary effect?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is trying to put as a Supplementary Question what I struck out of the Question which he handed in to the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCO-TURKISH CONVENTION.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make public the general indication of the terms of the Franco-Turkish Treaty, as communicated to him by the French Government in April of this year?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): A general indication of the terms communicated to me by the French Government in April last is no longer necessary, as the French Government have already published in the "Journal Official" of the 27th of August the full text of the Franco-Turkish Convention which was signed en the 30th of May and brought into force, by exchange of ratifications, on the 12th of August. I am endeavouring to obtain a spare copy to place in the Library of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

RELIEF (LOANS).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 50.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will
furnish a Return showing the amount sanctioned by way of loan to local authorities in respect of unemployment relief for the financial year 1925–26 and for the period since the beginning of the present financial year?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar question by the hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Charleton) on the 7th instant.

INSURANCE STAMPS.

Mr. CONNOLLY: 53.
asked the Minister of Health, if he is aware that unemployed men between 60 and 65 years of age, normally employed in insurable occupations, and signing at the Employment Exchanges as available for such employment, are being instructed that they must themselves place a certain number of insurance stamps upon their cards during the period of unemployment or become ineligible for old age pensions at the age of 65 years; will he issue instructions to correct this; and will he say whether any decision has been come to as to whether failure to pay arrears of sick insurance incurred during unemployment periods will affect a claim for an old age pension at 65 years?

Sir K. WOOD: As regards the first and second parts of the question, my right hon. Friend is not aware that instructions in the sense indicated are being given, but if the hon. Member will I supply him with particulars of specific cases, he will look into them. As regards the third part of the question, my right hon. Friend would point out that one of the statutory conditions for the grant of an old age pension is the payment of 104 contributions. Subject to this condition being satisfied, failure to pay arrears due to sickness or unemployment can have no effect on a claim for an old age pension at the age of 65.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Arising out of the first part of the answer, will the Parliamentary Secretary consider the question of amplifying Circular 303/X, which is very ambiguous and gives a good deal of anxiety and misunderstanding?

Sir K. WOOD: I think it would be better if the hon. Member would send me any case where any difficulty has arisen.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I will.

Mr. GROVES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there appears to be no uniform policy in regard to friendly societies in applying for the prolongation of the Insurance Act?

Sir K. WOOD: No, I am not aware of that, and if the hon. Member will send me particulars, I will inquire into that also.

Mr. GROVES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have sent plenty?

Sir K. WOOD: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW REFORM.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 51.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in framing his proposals for consolidation or reform of the Poor Law, he will fully preserve all the obligations and responsibilities of the relieving officer to give every destitute person who is in urgent necessity, whether the necessity is sudden or not, such relief as may be requisite, imposed by the General Consolidated Order (Unions) of 24th July, 1847 and the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834, Section 98?

Sir K. WOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to replies given to previous questions on this subject, of which I am sending him copies.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. VIANT: 52.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to a decision by his Department that a woman married in 1909, and whose husband died on 6th January, 1926, leaving her with two children. is not eligible to receive a widow's pension and children's allowances under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, as her late husband's first wife was her mother's sister; and whether he will make regulations under Section 36 of the Act to enable this widow and others in similar circumstances to receive the pension on the death of the husband when he is an insured person?

Sir K. WOOD: The decision referred to in the first part of the question was upheld on appeal under the Act. Legislation and not regulations under Section 36 would be required to give effect to the
proposal in the second part of the question, and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to introduce such legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — VACCINATION.

Mr. BRIANT: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether the case of the young man of 19 who recently died about 14 days after vaccination, the name of whom has been given privately to him in a letter, dated 19th November, from Mr. Arnold Lupton, has been reported to the Committee on Vaccination now sitting?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir.

Dr. WATTS: Has the hon. Member attempted to show that the death of this man is in any way connected with vaccination?

Sir K. WOOD: I must have notice of that question, but I do not think there is any reason to apprehend that such is the case.

Dr. WATTS: Is it not a fact that vaccination is intended as a protection against smallpox, and does not—

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not quite arise on this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

WESTMINSTER.

Mr. BRIANT: 55.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the homeless workers of Westminster have to seek accommodation in neighbouring London boroughs that are already carrying heavy financial burdens, in spite of the fact that housing sites are available in Westminster itself; and whether he will cause the attention of the Westminster housing authority to be drawn to the desirability of making use of sites that from time to time become available for housing the workers?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend appreciates the need of additional housing accommodation for workers in Westminster, and has fully discussed with the Westminster City Council the possible building sites which are available. The high cost of land in Westminster materially increases the difficulty of providing housing accommodation at a
reasonable rent, and, while my right hon. Friend would be glad to consider any further proposals submitted to him by the City Council, relief for the overcrowded population of Central London must come, in the main, from the large building schemes of the London County Council.

Mr. BRIANT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a site known as the Pulford Street site, which would house about 500 families, and will he use his influence with the Westminster Council, so that it may be secured for this purpose?

Sir K. WOOD: That is a different matter. The hon. Gentleman is now referring to a particular scheme, but this is a general question.

Mr. RYE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Westminster City Council has in hand at the present time two housing schemes, one of which will provide 77 tenements, and that during the last eight years the Westminster City Council has contributed to the London County Council housing schemes no less than £250,000?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not also a fact that a very large number of workers in Westminster live outside the city from choice, and are very happy to do so?

Mr. THURTLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the City of Westminster there are at the present time large numbers of empty houses that have been standing empty for many months, and will he take steps to see that those houses are utilised?

LANDLORDS AND TENANTS.

Mr. CLARRY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of amending legislation as between landlord and tenant and the grievances and abuses which exist under the present laws, he will consider the setting up of a Royal Commission to investigate the subject with a view to legislation during the present Parliament?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): My right hon. Friend does not think it necessary to advise the appointment of a Royal Commission, as the Government already
have sufficient information to enable them to introduce legislation during the present Parliament.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is it contemplated that such legislation will include the relationships between owners and tenants who are not now under the Rent Restriction Acts?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That will be apparent when legislation is introduced.

EAST ILSLEY.

Mr. W. BAKER: 56.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that practically the whole electorate of the parish of East Ilsley petitioned the Ministry against the decision of the Wantage Rural District Council to erect additional council houses on the eastern front of their churchyard and council School playgrounds, and that the parish council maintains that a site has now been obtained which fulfils the conditions laid down in the letter addressed by the Ministry to the Wantage Rural District Council on 18th September, 1926, and was approved by the inspector of the Ministry of Health; and whether he will use his powers under the Housing Acts to secure that the wish of the parishioners is not overridden?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is aware of the representations referred to, and at the time of their receipt he took steps to ensure that the rural district council should give full consideration to all aspects of the matter, including the question of alternative sites, before taking a final decision. After consideration and inspection of other sites, the council decided to adhere to their original proposal, and my right hon. Friend saw no sufficient reason for interfering with their discretion. A loan for the acquisition of the site was, therefore, sanctioned on the 11th October last, and it is understood that the contract for the erection of the houses has been completed and the work commenced.

CLOSING ORDERS.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 59.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can arrange to publish half-yearly, in conjunction with the return of new houses completed, a statement showing the number of houses demolished or closed as unfit for further habitations?

Sir K. WOOD: Statistics as to the numbers of houses in respect of which Closing Orders have been made under the Housing Acts, and the numbers demolished in pursuance of Demolition Orders, are published in the Annual Reports of the Ministry of Health. These statistics are compiled from information supplied in the annual reports of medical officers of health, and my right hon. Friend does not think that any useful purpose would be served by calling for these statistics each half-year.

Oral Answers to Questions — SILVER COLNAGE.

Sir C. OMAN: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended that any of the trial pieces for a new silver Colnage, which were prepared last summer, will be put into circulation as accepted monetary types during the year 1927?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot add at present to the reply given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on the 2nd August last.

Sir C. OMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I asked this question last summer? Has nothing further been done?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend is the last person in the House, am sure, who would suggest that questions so intricate, and interesting, and delicate as those connected with the designs on Colnage should be in any way oppressed by hurry.

Oral Answers to Questions — LABOUR COLONIES.

Mr. W. BAKER: 57.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will issue a statement showing the number of labour colonies in existence in this country, together with the necessary financial particulars to show their net cost?

Sir K. WOOD: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a reply to a question put by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) which contains information concerning the Hoflesley Bay Colony. My right hon. Friend has no information of other similar colonies
which may be in existence as charitable institutions. If the hon. Member desires information as to Government colonies he will, no doubt, address a question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 60.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any representations have been made to him since the passing of the Coal Mines Act by any of the States who had provisionally agreed to ratify the Washington Convention as affecting working hours?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The answer is in the negative.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that no States at all made representation, and, further, whether there have been any representations from the I L O or the Labour Department of the League of Nations on this question?

Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Member asked whether any representations were made by any States, and the answer is that no such representations have been made. With regard to the second part of the question, that raises another matter, and I must ask him to give notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — HARRATON COLLIERY (EX-SERVICEMEN)

Mr. LAWSON: 61.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has yet completed his inquiries into the dismissal of disabled ex-service men at Harraton Colliery, Fatfield, County Durham; and, if so, whether he will state the result of such inquiries?

Mr. BETTERTON: I regret that, owing to the insufficient description given by the hon. Member in his previous question, the inquiries made by the Department as a result of that question related to another colliery in the Fatfield area. Since the present question appeared on the Paper, inquiries have been instituted with regard to the Harraton Colliery, but have not yet been completed. I will let the hon. Member know the result.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEXTILE INDUSTRY (INQUIRY).

Mr. ROBINSON: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if it is proposed to have an inquiry into the textile industry, including the over capitalisation during the boom period, the working of short time, and the present production?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on the 28th July last, a copy of which I am sending him, to which I have nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH LAND FUND.

Mr. SANDEMAN (for Colonel GRETTON): 48.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the costs of collection, or any part of the collection, in the Free State of the annual payments due to the Irish Land Fund are debited to that fund; and, if so, what is the cost of collection so charged to the fund?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (WANHSIEN INCIDENT).

Mr. CLYNES: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether before the Prorogation of Parliament Papers will be laid in connection with the Wanhsien incident?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): I am afraid that it will not be possible to lay Papers before the Prorogation of Parliament, but I hope to do so very shortly. The Admiralty have promised to send us the Naval Report this week, and the Report of our Consul at Chunking left Pekin on the 5th November.

Mr. CLYNES: Might I ask whether any steps have been taken to expedite the receipt of this information, and, in view of repeated questions on the subject in the past few weeks, does the right hon. Gentleman not think the House is entitled to this information before rising?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I was anxious to give this information to the House as soon as I got it myself, and
the report from our Consul at Chunking is, I believe, coming by the shortest route, and without waiting for the usual bags.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Could the right hon. Gentleman say why these vital and urgent reports could not be sent by cable?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If the Foreign Office had to conduct all its business by cable, I am afraid the hon. Gentleman would find fault with our Estimates.

Captain GARRO-JONES: But is this not a case of exceptional importance involving the question of peace or war?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to inform the House what items of business it is intended to take before the Motion for the Adjournment is moved for the discussion of necessitous areas?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): First of all, there is a Lords minor Amendment to the Small Holdings Bill. Then we shall have to get the first four Orders on the Order Paper—Electrcity (Supply) Bill, further consideration of Lords Amendments; Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Bill [Lords] as amended, to be considered; Wireless Telegraphy (Blind Persons Facilities) Bill, consideration of Lords Amendments; and Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties) Bill, Adjourned debate on Question on Consideration of Lords Amendments—and, if received from another place, the Lords Amendments to the Merchandise Marks (Imported Goods) Bill.

Mr. CLYNES: With regard to the fourth item—Criminal Justice Bill—is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very considerable objection to this Bill, and that as other Bills have been dropped for the reason that they are controversial, and there is not sufficient time, what is the reason for placing this Bill in an exceptional category?

Commander EYRES MONSELL: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman ought to complain, This Bill is a Private
Members' Bill, It only awaits consideration of the Lords Amendments. I think we ought to give it a sporting chance, and the Government will not put on the Whips.

Captain BENN: Might I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman could not postpone until to-morrow the consideration of any Orders that will prevent the Motion for the Adjournment coming on at a reasonable hour?

Commander EYRES MONSELL: Certainly, we do not want, to prevent the Motion for the Adjournment being taken at a. reasonable hour, but we should like to get the Lords Amendments to the Merchandise Marks Bill to-day, because that will shorten the proceedings tomorrow.

Resolved,
That this House do meet To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendment be considered forthwith," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Guinness.]

FIRST SCHEDULE.

Lords Amendment:

In page 15, line 36, insert the words: "Section 16:
In Sub-section (2) for the words 'fifty pounds' there shall he substituted the words 'one hundred pounds.'

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is merely consequential on the change which was made in the definition of a small holding by Clause 16.

Question put, and agreed to.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT (PROVISION OF MEALS).

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move,
That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend Section 84 of the Education Act, 1921.
The Bill I am bringing forward is a very simple and a very short Measure. The law regarding School feeding is found in the Provision of Meals Act, 1906, now incorporated in the Education Act, 1921, Sections 81 to 85. According to Section 84, an education authority, if it finds that any children attending School are incapable, owing to lack of food, of profiting by the education provided for them, and if, further, it finds there are no funds other than public funds from which to defray this expense, may then provide meals out of the rates. Further, Section 84 compels local authorities to recover the cost of meals in such cases from parents. There might be a good deal to be said about conditions such as these, lint this Bill does not touch them. It does not interfere with Section 84, which provides for compulsory recovery of the cost. What it does do is very simple. It provides, first of all, that it shall he the duty of every education authority to inquire whether any children attending School are, in fact, unable through lack of food to profit by the education provided, and if so, and if there are no private funds available, then it shall make provision out of the rates for meals. I do not think anybody can say that it is not the duty of an education authority to inquire whether such a lamentable state of affairs exists, and I do not think anybody will say, if that is proved to he the case, that it is not our duty to relieve the situation, and the Bill stops there.
In bringing this Measure forward I am following a very well-worn precedent in education affairs. It is usual when Parliament desires to place new duties on education authorities to make those duties, in the first place, optional and grant-earning, and, later on, after a sufficient time has elapsed, to make them compulsory. We have had 20 years' experience and plenty of material on which to form our judgment. People may say, "Leave this to the unfettered judgment of the local authorities." There would be a great deal of force in that argument if, in fact, it had been left to the unfettered discretion of the local authorities, but it has not been so. Let us look at the figures as to the number of authorities which feed. In 1920 there were 118, 1921 137, the next year 190— that was an exceptional year—the next year 156, the next year 138, then 132,
and then a rise to 134. What is the reason why the numbers dropped from 150 to 132, and are now only 134? The explanation is that in 1922 the Board of Education decided that the total expenditure of local authorities on this matter during 1922–23 should be restricted, that is to say, that grants should only he paid on a sum of £300,000. In consequence of that decision, the authorities had their grants cut down. and it is perfectly clear that if we ration the authorities irrespective of the conditions prevailing in their areas, limiting the total amount of the grant to what they were earning at some earlier date, we leave no room whatever for further expansion. No additional authority had any chance of getting any grant at all. At present, among the 134 authorities, there are only nine counties of England which feed, and I say quite frankly that the object of bringing in this Bill is not so much to compel the local authorities, who are very willing to feed, as to compel the Board of Education, which is not willing to give the grant.
There is a concensus of opinion in the reports of education officials as to the benefits School children receive from School feeding. I could read extracts from their reports for three-quarters of an hour, but I will give the House only one or two. In 1923 the chief medical officer describes the extraordinary transformation effected by School feeding in the schools in Pembroke. He goes on to speak of the
vast benefit which would inure to the children of our countryside from the adoption of similar arrangements in the country as a whole. I entertain no doubt as to the physical benefit and educational advantage to the children.
In 1923 the medical officer for Devon gave a very painful picture of the conditions of the School children in Devonshire. He said:
The children start with a two or three mile walk to School. They arrive at School drenched with rain, cold, often pale-faced and tired. Many, it is true, bring pieces of cake of a very unappetising description.
In his view their dinner is generally insufficient, and he goes on to say that proper, hot, School meals would do an enormous amount for the health and the well-being of those children. From Anglesey comes a report
stating that the well-fed child is the baby, that as soon as a child becomes what one might call the old baby, that is to say, when there is a younger child, it begins to fall off—when it has reached the age of six to seven years, and when the younger baby comes along to take part of the milk. I cannot go on with this list, but these things are perfectly well known to the Minister of Education, though he has turned a deaf ear. Perhaps he will listen to his colleagues in the Cabinet, because the Minister of Public Health is an enthusiast for School feeding. He goes further than we do. He told the -House that children were better off when they were School-fed than when their fathers were earning good wages. He asserted that in the House. Actually the Minister of Health thinks it better for children to be fed at School than for their parents to have good wages. Such an enthusiast ought to do something in the Cabinet to save School feeding.
In conclusion I would say that this School feeding has continued for 20 years, and there are unanimous reports to the Ministry of Health that it has done children great good at small expense, and I think we ought to use those 20 years' experience and extend School feeding in the sense I have described to all areas. We ought to do this if we really desire the physical efficiency of our people, and if we have any compassion for the children who, without it, cannot profit by education at School, and those are the only ones to whom my Bill refers. Frankly, I have not any hope that the Government will do this, but I have brought forward the Bill and would ask the House to get it printed in order that we may express our opinion on the matter. I doubt very much whether even the proved necessity, the small expense and the great benefit which will be conferred on the children will move the Government in this matter, but I bring forward the Bill in order that we may put upon record what is our most immediate duty to the children of the country.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Lawrence, Mr. March, Mr. Morgan Jones, Mr. Lansbury, and Mr. Richardson.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT (PROVISION OF MEALS) BILL,

"to amend section eighty-four of the Education Act, 1921," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 210.]

INSPECTION OF DAMS, EMBANKMENTS AND RESERVOIRS.

Major OWEN: I beg to move,
That leave be given to introduce a Bill to provide for the inspection of dams, embankments, and reservoirs; and for other purposes relating thereto.
The Bill is a small one consisting of three effective Clauses. The first Clause gives the Secretary of State for the Home Department power to inspect all dams, embankments and reservoirs both during construction and after completion. The second Clause empowers the Home Secretary to order the. repair of dangerous and effective construction of this character. The third Clause imposes penalties for the infringment of any order made under the Bill by the Home Secretary.
The need of legislation of this nature will be apparent to all hon. Members. The House will recall that on the 2nd of November last year a terrible disaster, involving the loss of 16 lives, occurred at Dofgarrog, Carnarvonshire, owing to the failure of the dam at Lake Elgiau, above the village. Subsequent inquiries in the form of questions in the House of Commons revealed the astounding tact that no Government Department has any authority to interfere in these matters. The coroner's inquiry showed that there had been culpable negligence on the part of somebody, but the remarkable fact is that no one has been held responsible for the disaster, and compensation, where it has been paid, has been, I am credibly informed, of a very niggardly character.
On appeals being made to the Home Secretary for a public inquiry to be held, he intimated to this House that he had no authority to order such an inquiry, but subsequently, by arrangement with the Aluminium Corporation, the people owning the dam, an inquiry was carried out by Messrs. Alexander Gibb and Partners, and their Report was made in July last, and is now available in
the Library of the House of Commons. In the short time at my disposal it will be impossible for me to give more than one or two extracts from this serious and damaging Report, but, as I will show, it fully bears out the coroner's charge of culpable negiligence. The Report of Messrs Alexander Gibb and Partners shows that
The ground on which the dam that failed is sited, consists of glacial clay overlaid by a bed of peat, and is suitable for a dam of the type and height constructed, provided the wall is carried to a sufficient depth and has an efficient cut off.
That the wall bad not been carried to a sufficient depth is tragically proved by the following extracts from the Report:
The foundations of the concrete wall are not in general carried deep enough to form an effective cut-off.
The concrete is generally of poor quality and is not watertight.
I would call the attention of the House particularly to the following paragraph:
Had the wall been built throughout of good concrete in accordance with the typical section, and the base of the concrete taken down to a minimum depth of 6 feet into the clay, it is probable that the wall would have remained quite satisfactory and the disaster would not have occurred.
But what do we find! Let me turn again to the Report:
On the long arm of the dam, the investigations do not disclose a greater depth into the clay time 4 feet except in one pit at section 2280, where the depth is 6 feet. and on a length of 700 feet extending from section 1300 to section 2000 the base of the dam has only been taken down to a maximum depth of 2 feet 6 inches into the clay, and generally is but a few inches below the surface of sound firm clay.
The breach occurred between sections 2000 and 2080 at the highest part of the long arm where the maximum head of water against the dam would be about 18 feet, and at the south end of the breach the base of the dam has only been carried to a depth of less than 2 feet into the material below the peat, of which at least 1 foot was soft and porous material.
The conclusion arrived at is that as regards the depth to which the foundation is carried into good ground the dam, as constructed, more particularly throughout the long arm, falls short of what is required to make a satisfactory and safe construction to hold water.
Not only was the base of the dam not carried deep enough, but the material and workmanship were unsatisfactory. The report goes on to say:
From the observations made at the break and in the test pits, and on the
exposed surfaces of the concrete wall, it appears that the concrete is generally poor and in plates very bad; that the workmanship in placing the concrete has not been satisfactory; that an excessive quantity of large stone displacers has been used and that these have been carelessly placed.
It is, therefore, quite clear from the report and the extracts which I have read that this terrible disaster occurred owing to the base of the dam not being carried deep enough, and owing to the unsatisfactory material and the workmanship employed in the making of it. It is equally clear that had there been propel; supervision and inspection at the time of construction and periodically afterwards, as the law demands in the case of railways and tramways, this devastating tragedy need not have occurred.
The object of this Bill is to render such disasters impossible in the future, and it is particularly important that legislation should be enacted at once, especially in view of the fact that there are several other darns of this nature owned by the same company in various parts of the country, and more particularly in view of the fact that the development of hydroelectric power is likely to go ahead as a result of recent legislation passed in this House. In that area great anxiety and apprehension still exists as to the safety of the Llugwy and Cowlyd dams, and these apprehensions and fears have not been allayed by the report. In view of these facts I make bold to ask hon. Members of the House, irrespective of party, to support this Bill, and to give it a first reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Major Owen, Mr. Ellis Davies, Mr. Haydn Jones, Mr. Hayes, Sir Murdoch Macdonald, Mr. C. P. Williams, and Mr. Herbert Williams.

INSPECTION OF DAMS, EMBANKMENTS, AND RESERVOIRS BILL,

"to provide for the inspection of darns, embankments, and reservoirs; and for other purposes relating thereto," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 211.]

LOCAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE.

Special Report brought up, and read.

Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS.

Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to:

Palestine and East Africa Loans (Guarantee) Bill,

Roman Catholic Relief Bill,

Prisons (Scotland) Bill,

Glasgow Goldsmiths Company Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Housing (Rural Workers) Bill,

Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Bill,

Merchandise Marks (imported Goods) Bill, with Amendments.

Amendment to

Coroners (Amendment) Bill [Lords]. without Amendment.

HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) BILL,

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 213.]

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGULATION OF REPORTS) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 212.]

MERCHANDISE MARKS (IMPORTED GOODS) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 214.]

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.

Lords Amendments further considered.

CLAUSE 40.—(Amendment of Section 21 of the Electricity [Supply] Act, 1919.)

Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 26, at the end, insert new Sub-sections:
4.0 p.m.
(2) Where the Board or any authorised undertakers have, in pursuance of powers conferred on them under Section twenty-two of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, erected on any land supports for an electric line above ground, the Board or undertakers shall, for the purposes of Section eight of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, be deemed to be persons having an interest in the land on which such supports are erected.
(3) Where an application has been made to the Minister of Transport for his consent to the placing of any electric line above ground, and representations are made that the line will prejudicially affect any ancient monument within the meaning of the Ancient Monuments (Consolidation and Amendment) Act, 1913, the Minister of Transport, in determining whether to give or withhold his consent, or to impose conditions, shall take into consideration any recommendations made to him by the Commissioners of Works with a view to preventing the ancient monument being prejudicially affected.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Sub-section (2) seeks to give power to the Board to secure that new transmission lines shall not disappear into the ground. The new transmission lines will be considerably heavier than the present overhead lines. This Sub-section gives power to the Board to go to the Railway and Canal Commission in order to secure that there shall be sufficient support for such transmission lines, and the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, provides, where restrictions are imposed, that compensation is payable to the owner of the subsoil. So far as Subsection (3) is concerned, I move to agree with the Lords Amendment with some personal reluctance, because it might be held to be a censure on myself by Noble Lords in another place. It enacts a very excellent thing which I support, and it
says that, where it has been represented to me that the erection of an overhead line would destroy the amenities of something which was scheduled as an ancient monument, then I must listen to representations made to me by my noble Friend the First Commissioner of Works. Evidently those in another place have very little confidence in me and in my artistic susceptibilities, but I would inform them that since I have been in office I have constantly given personal attention when demands have been made for the erection of an overhead line, and I have always looked to see whether they did adversely affect an ancient monument or indeed the beauty of the landscape. The House will appreciate that only in very special circumstances would an overhead line be allowed to cross, say, the gardens of Hampton Court Palace, though it costs two and a half times to put a line underground than it does above ground. I am asking the House to agree with the Lords in both Sub-sections and especially in Sub-section (3). I think for the first time it recognises that the Government of the day has some duty to preserve the beauties of the landscape and ancient monuments.

Mr. KELLY: May I ask what is intended by the use of these words in Sub-section (2):
deemed to be persons having an interest in the land on which such supports are erected.
Why use those words?

Colonel ASHLEY: They are put in like that in order to give the Board a locus standi.

Mr. HARDIE: When such a position arises, will the Minister of Transport, representing the Government, take the same place as an owner of royalties under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act?

Colonel ASHLEY: The Board take that position, not the Government.

Mr. HARDIE: Are we to understand that wherever this condition arises this will apply to everything in connection with the scheme, no matter whether it be a Royal ground or a Royal palace or anything else?

Colonel ASHLEY: Of course; it applies wherever the transmission line is carried across the surface.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment In page 33, line 16, at the end, insert a new Clause:

CLAUSE E.—(Supply of electricity to railway companies, etc.)

Where any authorised undertakers may supply and are supplying within their district or area of supply electricity for haulage or traction to any company or authority being the owners or lessees of a railway, tramway, dock, harbour or canal undertaking situate partly within and partly without that district or area, such authorised undertakers may, subject to such limitations and conditions (if any) as the Minister of Transport may prescribe either generally or in any particular case, so supply electricity to be used for any purposes of such undertaking, whether within or without such district or area of supply, and such company or authority may, subject to such limitations and conditions (if any) as the Minister of Transport may prescribe either generally or in any particular case, use the electricity so supplied for any purposes of their undertaking for which they are entitled to use electricity:

Provided that no such supply shall, without the consent of the Minister of Transport, be used by such company or authority for purposes of lighting, other than the lighting of vehicles or stations and other premises in the occupation of such company or authority.

Lords Amendment read a Second time.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 5, to leave out the word "tramway."
Perhaps it would be for the general convenience of the House if you were to permit all these Amendments on the Order Paper standing in my name to be discussed at one and the same time, because they are all consequential and inter-dependent. The object of the Amendment is that power shall not be given to railway companies, docks, harbours, canal commissioners and boards to take electricity from outside the area of the authorised undertaker for their district unless consent has first been obtained from the Minister of Transport, and unless persons affected have had an opportunity of making representations. I will frankly admit that I would have preferred to have seen this Clause swept away altogether, because I believe there is ample power under previous Acts
of Parliament to deal with the situation which is here envisaged. At the same time, I understand that it is unlikely the Government would have been prepared to disagree with the Lords Amendment in that way. Therefore, I venture to move Amendments to their Amendment, and, in doing so, I would point out that, if this Amendment be successful, it will result in the following Lords Amendment proving redundant, because that empowers owners of docks' to take electricity from outside without any restriction, and is much more objectionable even than this new Clause E.
I may be permitted, perhaps, to remind the House that the fundamental and governing principle of this Electricity Bill is that each electricity undertaking shall be supreme in its own area, and I hope the Amendments which I have tabled will be carried, because they will stop poaching and what we regard as unfair and unreasonable encroachments. May I envisage a case where you have on the one hand a powerful and resourceful undertaking, and, on the other hand, in the near neighbourhood, a small and struggling undertaking, which perhaps is making good headway in face of much adversity. Under the provisions as now proposed by the Amendment introduced in another place, that powerful undertaking would be able seriously to cut into the area of the small undertaking and the effect might be that all consumers who were obtaining electricity in that area would have to pay more for their supply.
It is well to remind the House that railway companies are interested in many things beside railways. They run hotels, they run businesses, they run lodging-houses, and they run many undertakings. It will be seen, therefore, that this is a far-reaching proposal which is submitted to us from another place. It will be observed, in the first Amendment, that it is proposed to leave out the word "tramways," and the reason for leaving out that word is that we feel that, under Section 5 of the Electrical Lighting Act of 1909, there is already ample power to deal with any requirements of these undertakings. In moving these Amendments, we are acting on precedent, because, under the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, you find a provision empowering the Board of Trade, now the Ministry of
Transport, to give consent to an authorised undertaker to give a supply outside its normal prescribed area of supply. At the same time, this consent cannot be given unless and until notice of application has been circulated either by way of advertisement or otherwise, and unless full and ample opportunity to all persons affected has been given to make any representations thereon. I will not weary the House with a long dissertation, because I think the object of the various Amendments is clear, and I hope that they will commend themselves to the House as a whole.

Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
I would like to supplement slightly what my hon. Friend has already said. In the first place, may I point out to the House that this Clause is entirely new. The principle has never previously been discussed during the long months that we have had this Bill under consideration either here in the House or in the Committee upstairs. In the second place, I am not certain whether it really comes properly within the title of the Bill. The Bill is one to promote the supply of electricity, and, as it was held upstairs on several occasions when Members tried to move new Clauses, anything dealing with the distribution of electricity as against its manufacture and generation really does not come within the four corners of the title of the Bill. On that ground alone, I think we ought to examine the Lords Amendment with the greatest care. In the third place, the Clause, as it is sent down to us, makes no provision what-ever for appeal, makes no provision for any opponents to this Clause being heard by the Minister. If there be one subject more than another which has always been brought up in discussion in this House and in Committee upstairs on this Bill, it has been the desirability of giving people who might be prejudicially affected by any part of the Bill a chance of being heard before any Order was made by the Board.
The Amendments that have been tabled provide that persons who may be affected by the action of this Clause shall be given an opportunity of being heard and to that extent I venture to submit we shall considerably improve the Clause. I understand that in another place the
Government did not bind themselves to accept the Clause exactly as it stood and reserved full liberty for discussion in this House. As the Mover of the Amendment said, he would much prefer to see the Clause swept out of existence altogether. Personally, I feel the same way about it, but, in order not to prejudice and jeopardise the chance of the Bill getting through, I think it is very much better to amend the Clause and make it as harmless as possible. I venture to think that the Amendments do effect that purpose and remove the worst objections which we might otherwise have to the Clause.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): My hon. Friends are moving, in the series of Amendments standing on the Paper, to safeguard and protect rather nervous local authorities. I would say, to start with, that the Government are quite prepared to accept those Amendments as they stand upon the Paper, but later I am going to ask the House to agree with the Lords Amendment as amended by these particular Amendments already referred to. I think I should say a word in justification of the incorporation of the new Clause in the Bill, if I am in order in saying that now. I do not think that anyone who looks at electricity from a national point of view can afford to neglect the railway load. The railway load is a very big one, and a very convenient one. First of all, it has a load factor of nearly 40 per cent., and it shows a diversity, as compared with ordinary consumption, which still further benefits the station load factor. Consequently, it is of the essence of the problem, when railways require a supply of electricity, that it should come from the undertaking, and should not be generated at a separate station belonging, to the railway company.
At present the railways, under Section 24 of the Act of 1922, can take power in bulk from one particular undertaker, and can take it along their property, using it only for haulage and traction; but, if they require the electricity for any other uses, they have to take it from the undertaker in the particular district where they want the supply. That has been looked upon as a hardship, because it leads to duplication
of plant in many cases, and to unwarranted expense for the railway company in this respect, that they still have the right, being a self-contained business, to put up a generating station themselves. It is really to stop any future agitation by a railway company to put up its own generating station that we ask the House to accept the Amendment proposed in another place. We are, as I have said, quite prepared to accept the Amendments proposed by my hon. Friends so that the Minister's consent must be given and representations can be made. With that we think there will be no danger in future of the erection of separate generating stations, and the load of the railway companies will come on the undertakers of the country, as is only right.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I am rather sorry that the Government have decided to accept this series of Amendments, because their object is obviously to some extent to emasculate the new Clause which was put in in another place. As, Mr. Speaker, you have permitted a word or two to be said on the Clause itself, perhaps you will permit me to add a word or two to what has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary, because I think it is proper that the House should understand that the object of this new Clause as it origiNally stood—and I do not say that that object will not be to some extent still attained—was to remove the artificial restrictions which are now imposed on the railway companies in regard to the supplies of electrical energy which they take from some source other than their own generating stations. What is the position in regard to this matter at the present time? It is this. If a railway company generates electricity at its own generating station, there is no statutory limitation at all on the purposes for which it can use the electricity so generated. If, on the other hand, a railway company, instead of generating its own electricity, buys its supply from some outside source, then it is limited to using that electricity for purposes of traction or haulage or for the lighting of vehicles. For example, a railway company cannot at present pass on the electricity which it obtains from an outside source to one of its tenants, say, who may want electricity for lighting his premises, or for power purposes such
as lifts and so forth. The object, as I understand it, of the Clause which was inserted in another place, was to put a railway company taking a supply of electricity from an outside source in just the same position as regards the use of that electricity as it would have occupied, and as it does to-day occupy, if it generated that electricity for itself.
I can quite understand that at first sight some of the generating authorities might feel a little hesitation—and, indeed, that hesitation has been expressed by my two hon. Friends—as to the effect of this new Clause upon their own undertakings, but perhaps I may remind the House what is the object of the whole of this proposed legislation. Surely, the object is, by means of the present Bill, to co-ordinate the supplies of electricity and to obtain for the national supply the highest possible load factor. Therefore, if that object is to be attained to anything like a reasonably full extent, the national supply cannot, as the Parliamentary Secretary said just now, afford to lose the very valuable load factor at present provided by the railway companies; and, unless some such Clause as this be added to the Bill—that is to say, unless the railway companies can obtain a general authority, such as is proposed by this Clause, to use the current so supplied for the general objects of their electrical undertakings—it is obvious that they would prefer to put up or to maintain their own generating stations, and the national supply would lose the advantage of their very valuable load. For these reasons I should have been glad if the Government could have seen their way to retain this new Clause in the form in which it was passed in another place. I am grateful to them in that they have not decided to reject the Clause altogether, but I am sorry they are inclined so far to weaken—as I think, to emasculate—it as to accept the Amendments which have been put down by my two hon. Friends.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: Perhaps I might shortly explain our position with regard to this matter. We are not satisfied that this new Clause is really needed. Already powers exist under the old Electric Lighting Acts, and under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, which
give a considerable measure of protection to railway and other companies; but, the Clause having been introduced, it seems to us necessary that at least there should be some measure of control by the Minister over the proposals to which the new Clause relates. It is perfectly true, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, that the load factor of the railways is a very important consideration, but I am not at all satisfied that this new Clause really makes very much difference, because already powers exist which enable that problem, in part, to be met. The hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) used the blessed word "co-ordination." It appears to me that as the Clause stands, and without the Amendments which have been put down by hon. Gentlemen opposite, his purpose of national co-ordination would not be achieved. On the contrary, the new Clause, as it stands, would, as it seems to me, be an important influence working against the complete Co-ordination of the electricity supply system. Although, as I have said, we should have preferred this Clause not to have been inserted at all, I hope the Government will stand by the Amendments that have been put down, as I understand they meet the desires of the municipal corporations; and, perhaps, in regard to that, I may say just this word. The Parliamentary Secretary said that this was being done to meet the wishes of certain nervous authorities. That, if I may say so, is, I think, a little unfair. I think there is a real and perfectly justifiable feeling on this matter, and the very least that can be done in the present circumstances is to accept the Amendments on the Paper, as I hope the House will do.

Mr. KELLY: The Amendment which has been moved to the Lords Amendment is to delete the word "tramways." That, however, hardly carries us far enough. If the Movers of this Amendment think that that is an improvement, I wonder whether, under the term "tramways," they are including some of those tramways which are known as light railways. I have one in mind at the moment, which runs over a portion of Derbyshire and in the area of Burton-on-Trent—the Swadlincote Light Railway. If railways are to be left in, the owners of that particular light railway—who happen to be one of the large railway companies of the
country—will be enabled to supply the districts through which they pass. I am not at all satisfied that there is any need for this new Clause, and I cannot understand why the Movers of these Amendments are suggesting the deletion of the latter part of the proposal, under which there would be no supply without the consent of the Minister of Transport. That has all the appearance of enabling the railway companies to extend their area of supply, not only to places in the vicinity of their own stations, but also into districts that are outside the area in which their own stations happen to be situated. That is carrying us a great deal further than I think was ever intended, even when the Committee were considering the matter, and is giving to the railway companies, by what is being vested in them under this Clause, a further interest which one of these days will have to be paid for at a very heavy price. I am not at all satisfied, and I hope that my hon. Friends on this side will divide against the Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE: I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. Why is it that, in regard to this proposal which gives railway companies the power to supply current, there is nothing said as to the regulation of price? Are the companies to be left to fix their own price; or, if they become suppliers of current for lighting purposes, are they to come under the control of the other provisions of the Bill in regard to prices?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. They do not sell. They only supply for the purposes of their own undertaking.

Mr. H HARDIE: Take the case of a railway which has some shops under its, arches in a town. Above these you have houses in which ticket collectors or railway employés live. Unless you are going to give the current free, there has got to be a price. Has this been considered by those who have brought this Amendment forward? Is there any guarantee anywhere that this is going to be regulated by any other authority than the railway company itself, which supplies and must sell? You say they do not sell. Are we to assume that those who get it are going to get it free?

Colonel ASHLEY: Surely the answer is that they can always get a supply from the local authority.

Mr. HARDIE: But the paragraph gives power to the railway company to supply. Is this current under this new Amendment to be supplied free or is a price to be charged for it, and if a price is to be charged what price, and who controls it?

Colonel ASHLEY: Whether it is free or not will be a matter of arrangement between the company and their tenants. As regards the price, if they do not like it, they can take a supply from the local authority.

Mr. HARDIE: It is becoming clearer now. We have been told there is to be a method of fixing the price of current supplied and the object of the Bill is to cheapen it. But we are here allowing a paragraph to come in as an Amendment which destroys that part of the Bill. It seeks to give power to a railway company to supply current without putting it under the same conditions as we put a local authority under.

Colonel ASHLEY: indicated dissent.

Mr. HARDIE: Then will the right hon. Gentleman explain what is to be the price and who is to fix it, or are the railway companies going to be left obsofutely free to negotiate in any way they like?

Colonel ASHLEY: The answer is that if they do not like the price the railway companies are charging they can go to the local authority if the local authority's price is cheaper.

Mr. HARDIE: The Minister seems to me to be falling right into the trap I have been setting. We have it from his own mouth that the Bill is going to be set aside after all the trouble the House has been put to in order to get one vital principle in connection with the supply of current, and that is the regulation of the price. We go. so far in the Bill as to say we will not even allow anyone to do it direct. We buy from the generator and we sell back and become the distributor, in order to control the price and to make sure that there is going to be no manipulating of it. Now we are asked to put in a paragraph which sets all that aside in favour of the railway companies.

Mr. R. HUDSON: I think really the hon. Member is chasing a Will-o'-the-Wisp. Surely the point is covered in the last Amendment, which provides that anyone who is apprehensive of what may happen may make representations to the Minister of Transport before the scheme is finally sanctioned.

Mr. HARDIE: That only provides for bringing the matter before the Minister of Transport, but if other people under the Bill are going to be regulated, why should a railway company have the privilege of a different system from other people?

Colonel ASHLEY: Because they will be regulated in the nurse way as anyone else who takes a supply of electricity.
Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made to Lords Amendment:
In line 7, after the word "subject," insert "to the consent of the Minister of Transport and."
In line 8, leave out the words "The Minister of Transport" and insert "he."
In line 13, after the word "subject," insert "to the consent of the Minister of Transport and."
In line 14, leave out the words "the Minister of Transport," and insert "he."
In line 18, leave out from the word "that" to the end of the Clause, and insert
the Minister of Transport shall not in any case give any such consent until notice of the application for the consent has been given by advertisement or otherwise in such manner as the Minister may direct, and an opportunity has been given to any person who appears to the Minister to be affected of making representations thereon."—[Sir D. Newton.]

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 35, line 17, at the end insert new Clause F (Use of electricity by port undertakings, etc.):
Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act or Order, electricity supplied by any authorised undertaker to any company, body, or 'person owning or working an undertaking being a port, dock, or harbour may be used for all or any of the purposes of such undertaking or any part thereof.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This new Clause, as far as it relates to general conditions attaching to docks or harbours, is really covered by the Clause the House has just passed. Clause E is a general Clause and therefore could not deal with any previous Act in which special conditions were put, but in this Clause it is specifically stated that if it was passed it would override any other Act Which had specially restrictive covenants. Therefore the only undertaking with which it deals is the Port of London, because under the Act of last year, and as part of the understanding of last year, it was enacted that certain local authorities in the Port of London area should have restrictive powers over the user of electricity in the Port of London. That may be good or bad, but there it is, and the Government have consistently from the beginning taken up the position that they would not willingly do anything to break up the agreement or disturb the settlement arrived at in the Act of 1925, which my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary put through in such an able manner. Therefore, we ask the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment on the ground that it is a breach of that understanding. It may be said, "Supposing there is a breakdown in one of the stations, would it not be desirable that something should be done?" My answer is that, under the Bill, the grid will be set up and stations will be interconnected and the Port of London or anyone else will be able to get alternative current. Therefore that contingency will shortly be met and for that reason, and also because this is a breach of the agreement of last year, I ask the House to disagree with the Lords.

Mr. ATTLEE: I am very glad the Minister has taken this course, because this is really a quite unnecessary and rather mischievous Amendment. The fear which apparently it was designed to meet is really non-existent. As a matter of fact in the London area under the 1909 Act these undertakings are already linked up, so that if there is a breakdown in one the others can carry on the supply.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 46.—(Interpretation.)

Lords Amendment: In page 36, line 5, at the end, insert
The expression 'local authority' shall include a joint board or a joint committee constituted in pursuance of Section eight of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909; or by a special Act passed for the like purpose;
The expression 'absolute right of veto' means any unqualified right vested in an authorised undertaker in any Act or Order whereby a power company is restricted from supplying electricity (exclusive of any right of supply for the purposes of any railway, tramway, canal, navigation, dock, or harbour or of any water undertaking) without the consent of such authorised undertaker in any specified area.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The first definition is to include joint committees of local authorities where they have been set up under the Act of 1909. Obviously they ought to be in the same position as single local authorities. The second is to define a phrase that is found in Clause 10 of the Bill—"absolute right of veto." We are all agreed what it means but it is as well to have it set out.

Question put, and agreed to.

FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Amendments of Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899.)

Lords Amendment: In page 43, line 39, at the end, insert
S. 14 … In paragraph 1 (a) after the words 'one month' there shall be inserted 'or in the case of service lines, seven days.'

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It shortens the length of time necessary for giving notice in the case of service lines. It has been accepted by the Postmaster-General, who at one time objected to it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 43, leave out lines 40 to 43, inclusive.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is really drafting. We put the words in in Clause 19 last night and therefore we can leave them out here.

Question put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.

Committee nominated of Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon, Mr. Robert Hudson, Mr. Rentoul, Mr. Attlee, and Mr. Kelly.

Three to be the quorum.

To withdraw immediately.—[The Attorney-General.]

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported later, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.—[The Attorney-General.]

Orders of the Day — SALE OF FOOD (WEIGHTS AND MEASURES) BILL [Lords].

As amended, considered.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister): There is one point with regard to the second Schedule. The House last night inserted the following Amendment:
An invoice describing the weight or measure or number of the article shall be a sumcient warranty notwithstanding that it contains no words of express warranty or was delivered after the purchase of the article.
That was passed by the House, but it does not figure in the Bill as printed. If the right procedure be that it should be moved again on Report, I will move it.

Mr. SPEAKER: That point has already been brought to my notice. I am informed by the Chairman of Committees that these words were inserted in the Bill and therefore it cannot be done a second time. The correction has been made in the printed copy that comes to the House from the Committee.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I would like to thank the House for the very expeditious and businesslike consideration that they have given to the Measure. It may not be a perfect Measure, but it is a convenient instrument for its purpose.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: I should like, in the first place, to thank the President of the Board of Trade very cordially for the way in which he has dealt with the objections which have been brought forward privately and before the House with regard to this useful little Bill. I confess that the fears which I have from time to time expressed in regard to the Bill have been considerably mitigated by the improvements which have been introduced during its passage through the House, but they have not been entirely dissipated. So far as the Bill is necessary to protect the consumer against dishonest or even careless distributors, everyone will readily assent to its provisions. I think the Bill will, with the machinery of prosecutions, put the fear of God into the dishonest, and, perhaps, the fear of man into the careless, distributor. The dishonest are relatively few, and I hope the careless are not too numerous.
There is one substantial omission from the amended Bill to which I would draw attention. Before the Bill finally passes from us one word of protest ought to be made in regard to the Amendment which was inserted in the Bill in the Committee stage, on the Motion of the Minister of Agriculture, the effect of which was to remove the wholesaler from the scope of the Bill. I am not desirous of arguing or re-arguing that question on its merits. I appreciate, no one can fail to appreciate, the strength of the reasons which were adduced by the Minister of Agriculture for the Amendment which he moved, but it has been brought to my notice that the deletion of that particular provision will work very considerable hardships upon certain classes of retailers, particularly fruiterers and greengrocers who deal in very perishable articles. Be that as it may, and I do not desire to argue the matter here and now, I would enter a respectful protest against what is, quite obviously, a fundamental alteration in the scope and purpose of the Bill made at the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour of its passage
through this House. I hope that the Bill will prove to be a workable and useful little bit. of legislation, and I hope that as regards the honest retailers it will be worked, as I have no doubt it will be worked, considerately and tactfully, and that it will not prove harassing, as other wise it might prove harassing, to the legitimate and honest trader.

Mr. R. MORRISON: The hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) said that the Bill would only apply to a very few people. I agree with that statement, but if it carries with it the implication that the only people that will be affected by this Bill are small shopkeepers, then I disagree with him. Unfortunately, the tendency of legislation of this kind in the past, has been directed against the little man and to let the big fellow go scot free.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: I hope the hon. Member will allow me to correct that impression. That was not my intention. I said that it would only apply to the dishonest or careless distributor. I did not say that it would only apply to the small distributor.

Mr. MORRISON: While the number of persons who are practising dishonesty of the kind aimed at by this Bill is small, their ramifications, unfortunately, are very wide, and I am afraid they are increasing, particularly in the category of the supply of packet goods which are packed and sent out to retailers. The point which I rose to make was that I regret the Government did not see their way to introduce this Bill a month or two ago, in order that we could have had an opportunity of discussing it in the usual way in Committee upstairs. I do not think that anyone can say that the Bill is a better Bill to-day than it was when it was introduced; but I do think that had we been given an opportunity of stating the full facts as to the kind of deception that goes on amongst the consumers of this country, the Committee stage of the Bill upstairs might possibly have been able to improve the Bill. Such as the Bill is, I think we ought to accept it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (BLIND PERSONS FACILITIES) BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Ian Fraser.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Licences to blind persons for the purpose of receiving wireless messages.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 17, after the word "by," insert the words "or under the authority of."

Captain FRASER: I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Many local authorities adopt the practice of obtaining the assistance of certain Voluntary agencies in registering blind persons who live in their neighbourhoods. It is a convenience, both to the blind persons and the local authorities that that should be done. The object of this very small Amendment is to make it indubitably the ease that the local authorities can employ those agencies if they desire to do so.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 20, at the end, add:
The expenses incurred by a council under this section shall be defrayed in the case of a county council out of the county fund as expenses for general county purposes, and in the case of a county borough council out of the borough fund or borough rate. This Section shall apply to the City of London as if it were a county borough and the common council were the council of a county borough and the general rate were the borough fund or rate.
(2) In the application of this Section to Scotland 'county borough' has the same meaning as in the Blind Persons Act, 1920, and the expenses incurred by a county or town council under this Act shall be defrayed in like manner as expenses under the said Act.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that this Amendment technically involves privilege. If the House sees fit to accept it, I shall make a special entry in the Journal, in order to protect our position in regard to privilege.

Captain FRASER: I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The object of the Amendment is simply to enable local authorities to charge the trivial expenses which will be incurred in issuing certificates to blind persons who require free licences upon the same fund as that to which they charge the other duties which they undertake for the benefit of the blind. These Amendments have been moved in another place at the instance of the London County Council, the Corporation of the City of London and the Scottish Office. They do not affect the principle of the Bill in any way, nor do they affect the blind persons. It is simply a matter of convenience for the local authorities concerned.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INCREASE OF PENALTIES) BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question proposed [13th December] on Consideration of Lords Amendments.

CLAUSE 1.—(Power of Court to substitute penal servitude for consecutive terms of imprisonment.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 16, at the end, insert:
Provided that if, on an appeal by a person sentenced under this Act to penal servitude in respect of two or more offences with which he was charged on separate indictments, it appears to the Court of Criminal Appeal that the appellant, though not properly convicted on some indictment, has been properly convicted on some other indictment, the Court shall have the like powers as if the appellant had been convicted of the offences on different counts or parts of the same indictment; but where an appellant convicted of two or more offences, whether on one or more indictments, has been sentenced under this Act to penal servitude in respect of two or more offences and his conviction of any such offence is quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Court shall not affirm any Sentence passed at the trial or pass any sentence in substitution therefore which is more severe than would have been warranted by law if the appellant had been acquitted at the trial of any charge in respect of which his conviction is quashed.

Question proposed [13th December]
That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Creams-Lord.]

Question again proposed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 20, leave out "or riotous."

Mr. GREAVES-LORD: I beg to move, "That this House dab agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is really a drafting Amendment which together with the one which follows makes it quite clear that there shall be a definite exclusion from this Bill of all offences of a political nature.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: in page 2, line 11, at the end, insert
(b) a reference to the Court of Criminal Appeal shall be construed as a reference to the High Court of Justiciary in the exercise of its jurisdiction under the Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act, 1926.

Mr. GREAVES-LORD: I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment has the effect of applying to Scotland the second Amendment to which we have already agreed.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Short title and extent.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 12, leave out the words "Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties)" and insert "Penal Servitude."

Mr. GREAVES-LORD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is merely designed to bring the short title of the Bill into line with the Amendment of the longer title to which we have agreed. It also brings the title of the Bill into a more accurate relation to what the Bill really is, namely, not a Bill to increase punishments but to alter the nature of them. In that way we bring it into line with various other Statutes which have been passed for very much the same object.

5.0 p.m.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I oppose the Motion, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," because the Amendment alters the words "Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties)" into "Penal Servitude." I think the proposed substituted title is
not apt to describe the purpose of the Bill. The substitution of "Penal Servitude" for "Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties)" has been proposed, consciously or unconsciously—we will assume unconsciously—in order to get over a difficulty which has been present ever since this Measure has been before the House. The hon. and learned Member says that the new Title is to bring the Title of the Bill into harmony with the object of the Bill, which he says is to modify certain penalties. The fact is that this Bill merely gives power to Judges to sentence a man to penal servitude, where they now have the power to sentence them to consecutive terms of imprisonment with hard labour. That is to say, under the existing law there is nothing to prevent a Judge imposing several consecutive sentences of hard labour when persons are found guilty of the various counts which are mentioned in the Bill, and it is merely because the Judges in their humanity have refused in the past to give sentences of more than two years' hard labour that it is now proposed that, if the Judges can be persuaded that instead of giving three or four years' hard labour, they are, in fact, giving three or four years' penal servitude, they will be Induced to increase penalties which they would otherwise not have imposed. Therefore, I say that this Bill is entirely a Bill to increase penalties, and I object to a Bill being described by the mere indistinguishable title of the "Penal Servitude Bill" when ft is a Bill in effect to enable the Judges to send persons to prison for four, five or six years, where they cannot now send them for more than two years.
The absurdity of this proposed title is this. When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord), who proposed this Bill, first brought it forward, he had some difficulty in justifying it—and it has been difficult all through this Bill to justify it—and what he is now trying to justify is his original error by altering the title. He has forgotten that in these days penal servitude and hard labour are substantially the same, and that the Home Secretary himself, speaking on the Bill, said that there was no difference to-day between penal servitude and hard labour.
That means that if the Judges to-day are unwilling to give more than two years' hard labour where there are consecutive sentences, they would be equally unwilling to give more than two years' penal servitude, because the Home Secretary says they are in effect the same thing. But simply because of one case—the Hayley Morriss case—and because of the observations made by a learned Judge in the middle of that case, not in his judgment, this Bill was rushed into this House, and the Government, for some reason that I have never been able to understand, have treated it with favour. I am concerned that the House and the country should know that this Bill is a Bill in fact, apart from legal technicalities, to persuade Judges to increase penalties on persons who are sentenced to hard labour.
When we read in another place that it is suggested to substitute "Penal Servitude" for the "Increase of Penalties," I suppose it is hoped that persons will not realise that the Judges are now being invited to give more than two years' imprisonment where formerly they could only give up to two years. We have fought this Bill on every point. I know I should be out of order now if I repeated all the reasons and the arguments against the Measure. The Government this evening, at tnis late hour, have been sufficiently persuaded to take off their Whips, but they put on their Whips at earlier stages and so do encouragement to the Bill was given by the Front Bench. Now I understand that the House is free to express an opinion. If we must have this Bill, and if Judges must be given these powers, let them at least know what powers they are given. When a Judge of the High Court or a Chairman of Quarter Sessions reads this Bill in the form in which it has left this House, he will know that he is given encouragement to increase penalties. If he is a humane man, he may decline to do it, but if he reads merely that this is a penal servitude Bill and when what has happened here is forgotten in the course of a few years, we may have persons, convicted of consecutive offences for which they should only receive two years, and, for this cumulative imprisonment, gradually this bad idea of penal servitude may be substituted to any extent. Therefore I say that we are entitled to have
this Measure accurately described. This Bill brought in to enable Judges to give heavier sentences, in its original form extended to political offences.

Mr. GREAVES-LORD: My right hon. and learned Friend really must forgive me if I interrupt him for a moment. In its original form the Bill included no offence of a political character, but we then altered the phraseology of it in such a way that it would have brought in political offences, and in order then to carry out the original intention this special proviso was put in. But I repeat that in its original form the Bill did not include political offences.

Sir H. SLESSER: I am willing to accept the hon. and learned Member's correction. In its original form the Bill did not include political offences, but at a later stage it did include political offences, and finally these political offences had to be taken out.

Mr. GREAVES-LORD: I did so in pursuance of a pledge I gave that political offences, as far as I could provide for it, should be kept out of the Bill.

Sir H. SLESSER: I am pointing out that this Bill was a Bill to increase penalties, and when the hon. Member says that he was compelled to give a pledge, that simply showed how carefully the Labour party and others were watching his intentions in this Bill. That is what we are here for, to see that people are not locked up and imprisoned without protest. The next thing was that the amount of penal servitude which could be given was unlimited—a man could receive 20, 30 or 40 years' penal servitude under this Measure if he committed 20 offences. We compelled the hon. and /earned Member to reduce the amount very much, but to pretend that this is not a Bill for increasing penalties is to make a mockery of the proceedings of this House.
This Bill displays, as so much legislation does display, that bastard and dangerous form, not of Socialism, but of State activity, which consists of locking people up on every possible occasion, and this is a Measure to lock people up. I suppose that is one way of dealing with
those people whom you do not approve. But this Bill does increase penalties and should be called a Bill to increase penalties and it should go back to another place under its proper brand and stigma, which is a Bill to increase penalties. I beg to oppose the Motion, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." The Amendment is designed to conceal the real sinister intention of the Measure.

Mr. GROTRIAN: Does the right hon. and learned Member really suggest to the House that the title of any Bill is going to weigh one way or another with a Judge in passing sentence, and that it will induce a Judge to give a heavier sentence?

Sir H. SLESSER: If I may speak again, by leave of the House, I do not know whether a particular Judge would be so influenced or not, hut I feel that it would be much more satisfactory, where we have a Measure to increase penalties, that we should fearlessly say so, and if it is a good thing to lock people up, that we should say so.

Mr. HARNEY: I had not intended saying anything at all on this Bill, but I so thoroughly approve of everything said by the last speaker that I feel I ought not to leave him without support. The strongest objection which was raised against this Bill when it was introduced was that it was merely a Bill to increase penalties, and most of the arguments were directed to show that it was a retrograde movement to do anything of the kind, and that penalties as they are to-day, so far from being inadequate, were too heavy, and that if they were reduced by one-half criminals would not be increased and the public purse would be saved, and the resiliency of modern nature would be strengthened. Because of these arguments the camouflaged title of "Penal Servitude" is adopted. This is not a penal servitude Bill. It is a Rill really and absolutely to increase penalties. What is the nature of the Bill? The law was that you could not give a longer single term of hard labour than two years, but if there was—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): We cannot now discuss the merits of the Bill. The only question before the House is the Lords Amendment.

Mr. HARNEY: I agree absolutely. I am only speaking now of the Title. The law before was that you could give an accumulation of periods up to two years, but in practice that was not done, because Judges thought it was inhumane. When they wanted to exceed two years' hard labour, they broke into penal servitude. Now this Bill 'Simply says that where you have an accumulation of sentences, and you ought to give four or six years' hard labour—hard labour being the assigned sentence—we will enable you to get over the inhumane sentence that deterred you before by giving an increase of penal servitude. But the Bill was brought in in order to increase penalties, and I must agree with what was so forcibly put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), when he said that the Home Secretary, in the debate on this Measure, went out of his way to say that the system has entirely changed now in our prisons. He said, "I have been there. There is absolutely no difference between penal servitude and hard labour, and therefore this Bill says, 'Let us increase the sentence from two years to four years or six years and call it penal servitude, but in fact let it be the same as an accumulation of terms of hard labour.'"

Mr. GREAVES-LORD: May I correct my hon. and learned Friend? I am perfectly certain he does not want to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, but my recollection of what the Home Secretary said was that there was no difference in the nature of hardship of work and so forth, but that there was this essential difference, which everybody has always recognised, that hard labour means confinement in a close and very strictly circumscribed area, whereas penal servitude allows a man to get into the open and into the fields and into much healthier surroundings.

Mr. HARNEY: My memory may be at fault sometimes, but I will back it to be right here. The hon. and learned Member puts a very partial view of the Home Secretary's remarks. The Home Secretary did, in express and unequivocal terms, say, "I have been to the prisons, and there is in substance no difference between the two. In the old times, there used to be nine months' solitary confine-
ment. Now that is done away with completely, so that anyone who thinks that a person who gets penal servitude is treated differently to a person who gets hard labour is mistaken." You will find that those are somewhat the nature of the words of the right hon. Gentleman. Since, therefore, this Bill is a Bill to increase penalties—that may be wise or unwise—the whole weight of the attack upon it was made because penalties should not be increased. Why should we not have on our Statute Book the fact that this Parliament of 1926 was of opinion that there should be a general increase of penalties? Why do they want to change it in the other House unless they do not want to go forth what is true Having regard to these observations, I think we are entitled to call upon the Minister on the Front Bench to give us some explanation of why this changes made in another place is justified in this House.

Mr. LANSBURY: I want to join in the protest against the change in this Title, because I have not heard from the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Harney) or from the author of the Bill why we should be ashamed to let the public know in ordinary English what the Bill really affects. When the Bill was introduced it was supported and defended as a means of increasing the punishment for certain serious offences. The whole argument was that the offences for which people were to be punished were so horrible that only an increase of the penalties which may be inflicted would put an end to them. There are many people in this country who think that to increase penalties is not the way to diminish crime, that it only makes crime worse, and they should know, I think, that this Parliament, which has been guilty of a good many misdeeds lately, this party now in power, are of opinion that crime can be diminished by increasing the penalties. This is the most retrograde Measure that has been before the House for a very long time. It is a great pity it was brought in in the manner it was—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid we cannot discuss that question now. The question before the House is to consider the Lords Amendment to alter the Short Title of the Bill by inserting the
words "Penal Servitude" instead of the words "Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties)."

Mr. LANSBURY: I will try to keep within the limits of order, although it is extremely difficult. The point I want to urge is that this Bill was brought in and defended as a Measure to increase the penalties, and it is quite wrong, now that we have reached the final stages of the Bill, that the Title should be altered in this way and that we should try to cover up a most mischievous piece of legislation in this fashion. I see there is a Law Officer of the Crown present on the Front Bench, although he is only a Law Officer for Scotland, but I think some responsible Minister should tell the House what is the attitude of the Government towards this particular Amendment and the Bill in general. At any rate it is the business of the Government to give their supporters some guidance in a matter of this kind. Are the Government proud of the Bill, or are they in collusion with the hon. and learned Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now asking whether the Government approve of the Bill. The question before the House is the Amendment made by the Lords in the Short Title of the Bill.

Mr. LANSBURY: That was a slip. I want to know whether the Government approves of the alteration in the Title, whether they approve of the authors of the Bill trying to deceive the public by this alteration in its title, and I am asking that some Member of the Government should give their supporters a little guidance in the matter. The Tory party claims to be the honest party. I will concede them that if only someone will stand up and tell us why the Title of this Bill is to be changed; why when you are increasing penalties from two years to seven years you desire to give an entirely different Title to the Bill. The proper Title is the one which the hon. and learned Member so eloquently defended when he introduced the Measure, but he is now so ashamed of his offspring that he wants to deceive the public by calling it by another name.

Mr. GREAVES-LORD: Let me in one sentence tell the hon. Member why the
change is made. There is no provision in the Bill which increases the statutory powers of the Court to inflict any longer term's of imprisonment than the Statute at present allows.

Mr. HARNEY: There is, if you call it by another name.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a perfectly legal point like that, I am content to leave it to the decision of the two hon. and learned Members, who disagree with one another, as lawyers always do.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): I think it is right that the House should realise that they have already agreed to the change in the Title, and the only Amendment we are considering now is to leave out the words "Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties)," and insert "Penal Servitude." The change in the Title has already been agreed to, and I submit it is not in order to discuss the Title of the Bill.

Sir H. SLESSER: May I intervene for a moment? Mr. Speaker has already ruled that it is in order, and I was allowed to proceed with my argument without a question of order being raised.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see any reason why I should give a decision on that point. It is quite clear that the House has already decided on the Title, and what we are now discussing is the Lords Amendment to the Short Title.

Mr. T. HUDSON: The Lord Advocate has made no attempt of any sort to explain to the House why the change has been made. I do not remember that any agreement was come to that this change should be made, but I am not complaining about that. The Government is to blame; they have the responsibility in regard to this matter, but I maintain that it is not fair to the House that the explanation should be left to the hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill, or that the Government should shelter itself behind the point of Order which has just been raised—and which is not a point of Order. We are still in the position that, up to the moment, we have had no explanation of the action the Government propose to take. On a matter of this kind I suggest that I am as great an expert as any hon. Member
in this House. I happen to have spent in His Majesty's hostels a longer period than any other hon. Member, and I know the difficulties that confront us at the present time with regard to the punishments in the cases—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Clearly this is not in order. The question before the House is the Lords Amendment to the Short Title.

Mr. HUDSON: Am I not in order in discussing the different terms that are referred to in the Bill and to give reasons why the phrase "Penal Servitude" ought not to be put into the Title. It does not accurately describe what goes on in the case of people who are in prison. That was the matter I was trying to raise, and I was suggesting that I probably knew more about it than any other hon. Member.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The only question now under discussion is with regard to the Lords Amendment to the Short Title, that is, Clause 2. That is not the actual Title of the Bill. If the hon. Member can show, within the Rules of Order, why the Lords Amendment should not be made, it would be in order, but so far he has been out of order.

Mr. HUDSON: The matter we are discussing now is, in the Title, to leave out the word "punishments" and insert—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member has the Bill before him. He will see that Clause 2 is the "Short Title and Extent"; that is the question we are now discussing.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I certainly think we have cause for serious complaint against the Government for the manner in which they have treated this matter. They permit the hon. and learned Member to take Government time in order to pass this Bill, which is an ad hoc Bill and highly objectionable Bill. It is described as a "Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties) Bill." Why does the Lord Advocate confine the only observation he has to make on this matter to the one simple sentence that we have consented to the change of Title? Can be tell me when we consented to the change of Title? One Amendment was taken last night, but I am not aware that it was an Amendment to the Title. The Lord Advocate
is only able to make that sole contribution to the Debate, not on the merits of the Amendment, and I invite him now to say when we consented to the change in the Title of this Bill, which only hides the purpose of the Measure under this mild but entirely delusive title. If he cannot, or will not, it is because he is unable to tell me that we ever consented to the change—

The LORD ADVOCATE: If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the first of the Lords Amendments he will see
In the Title leave out 'punishment' and insert 'penal servitude in lieu of imprisonment.'
That is what I referred to.

Captain BENN: Is it on the Paper to-day?

The LORD ADVOCATE: It is in the Title; "leave out punishment" and insert "penal service in lieu of imprisonment." It was agreed to last night.

Captain BENN: The argument now put forward by the Lord Advocate is that/because we have passed certain words in the Bill we have committed ourselves to a change in the Title. I entirely and absolutely repel any such argument. We have never consented to anything of the kind.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are not discussing the Title now. We are discussing a Lords Amendment consequential on the decision of last night.

Captain BENN: Perhaps I am making a mistake. I understand we are discussing the Lords Amendment, on line 12, to leave out the words "Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties)" and insert" Penal Servitude."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not the Title of the Bill.

Captain BENN: I will read the marginal note—"Short Title and Extent." The argument advanced by the Lord Advocate has absolutely no foundation whatever in fact. I support the rejection of the Amendment because it deceives the public as to the real object of the Bill. Nothing has been said in support of the Lord Advocate's contention, and nothing has been said which can justify this camouflage which it is proposed to apply to this entirely objectionable Measure.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The House divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 106.

Division No. 563.]
AYES.
[5.30 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Oakley, T.


Apsley, Lord
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Atholl, Duchess of
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grant, Sir J. A.
Penny, Frederick George


Balniel, Lord
Greene, W. p. Crawford
Perring, Sir William George


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Price, Major C. W M.


Bennett, A. J.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Radford, E. A.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hammersley, S. S.
Raine, W.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hanbury, C.
Ramsden, E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harland, A.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Held, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Braithwaite, A. N.
Hartington, Marquess of
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Briant, Frank
Haslam, Henry C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Briscoe, Richard George
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. [Berks, Newb'y)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rye, F. G.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Herbert, S. (York, N. H., Scar. & Wh'by)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hilton, Cecil
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Sandon, Lord


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Savery, S. S.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Shepperson, E. W.


Campbell, E. T.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belt'st.)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hurd, Percy A.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bt's)
Smithers, Waldron


Chapman, Sir S.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Christie, J. A.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jacob, A. E.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Cooper, A. Duff
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cope, Major William
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Storry-Deans, R.


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. sir Philip
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Loder, J. de V.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Looker, Herbert William
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lougher, L.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dawson, Sir Philip
Luce, Maj. Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Waddington, R.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otlay)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacIntyre, Ian
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
McLean, Major A.
Watts, Dr. T.


Ellis, R. G.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Margesson, Captain D.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wolmer, Viscount


Fenby, T. D.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Womersley, W. J.


Fermoy, Lord
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Finburgh, S.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Forrest, W.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Murchison, C. K.



Fraser, Captain Ian
Neville, R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gates, Percy
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Mr. Greaves-Lord and Mr. Rentoul.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Nuttall, Ellis



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Connolly, M.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Cove, W. G.


Ammon, Charles George
Bromley, J.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Buchanan, G.
Dalton, Hugh


Baker, Walter
Charleton, H. C.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Cluse, W. S.
Dennison, R.


Barnes, A.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gardner, J. p.


Barr, J.
Compton, Joseph
Gillett, George M.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lee, F.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Greenall, T.
Lindley, F. W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lowth, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R.(Aberavon)
Stamford, T. W.


Groves, T.
MacLaren, Andrew
Stephen, Campbell


Grundy, T. W.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sutton, J. E.


Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
March, S.
Taylor, R. A.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maxton, James
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Montague, Frederick
Thurtle, Ernest


Hardie, George D.
Morris, R. H.
Tinker, John Joseph


Harney, E. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Townend, A. E.


Harris, Percy A.
Murnin, H.
Viant, S. P.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Naylor, T. E.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hayday, Arthur
Palin, John Henry
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hayes, John Henry
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Potts, John S.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Hirst, G. H.
Pureed, A. A.
Westwood, J.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Riley, Ben
Whiteley, W.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wiggins, William Martin


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rose, Frank H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Windsor, Walter


Kelly, W. T.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wright, W.


Kennedy, T.
Sexton, James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lawrence, Susan
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)



Lawson, John James
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Lansbury and Colonel Day.


Question put, and agreed to.

NECESSITOUS AREAS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: We had put a Motion on the Order Paper for the express purpose of securing on the Adjournment a discussion of the problem of necessitous areas. That Motion was drawn in rather wide terms, in that it directed attention to the enormous growth of the liabilities of the local authorities, due to industrial distress within recent years. It went on to argue that the time had come when, in the national interest, the State should assume some part of the responsibility for these great burdens. For reasons best known to themselves the Government have made discussion of that Motion impossible. We, on our side, would have liked to submit that to the open and definite test of opinion in this House, since we are perfectly satisfied that on every ground an unanswerable case could be made for a Motion of that kind. It is of vital importance that Members should declare their faith one way or the other. We are denied that opportunity to-night, and, accordingly, I am compelled to fall back on the simple Motion for the Adjournment of the House for discussion of this question. We recognise that that confines us very largely to problems of administration, but even in problems of administration we can outline a case which I think
would go a considerable distance to meet the difficulties of the local authorities at this time.
Innumerable debates on this subject have already taken place. I am not here to suggest that any Government has been free from difficulty in this matter. It would be idle to deny that a considerable sum of public money is involved. But to-night, in view of the fact that we are at the end of four or five years of industrial depression, and that events have been aggravated very much by the circumstances of 1926, it is possible to show that the case for the local authorities has become urgent, and, indeed, overwhelming. Recently figures have shown that the amount of out relief in England and Wales, which was £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 annually under normal pre-War conditions, has risen as high as £15,000,000 or £16,000,000; that local authorities like Bedwellty have liabilities of approximately 1,000,000—I am giving only round figures—with annual liabilities of £50,000; that there are heavy debts in Sheffield, Birmingham and other areas; that the North-East Coast of England and the East End of London, the West of Scotland and other parts of the country, which are exposed to industrial distress, have suffered very severely indeed. No one disputes that a large part of that burden emerged before the actual coal stoppage descended upon the country. I want to make it perfectly clear that we draw a line also, at all events, for the purposes of debate, between that part
of the work of the local authorities which has been subject to controversy in this House—some form of interference by the Ministry of Health, and the rest—and the ordinary normal work of the local authorities which has not been in controversy at all. In point of fact it is local authorities which have proceeded largely in terms of agreement with the Ministry of Health which find themselves in this deplorable situation at the present time.
I think we shall gain very largely if we have that fact in our mind, and recognise that here is a great issue which has grown up because of several years of industrial distress, taken together with the events of the present year. Various appeals have been made to the Government in previous Debates, and certainly I am not going to suggest that this is capable of easy solution. In fact we, on this side, know perfectly well, from our experience of local authorities in these matters, that it is a very complicated issue and that it is very difficult to make proposals which will help the local authorities in Great Britain and will work out equitably and evenly over the whole field. But the first thought which occurs to us to-night is this: that even if we take the most optimistic view of industrial recovery in this country in the near future, several of these local authorities are going to find it almost impossible, if not indeed impossible, to meet the liabilities which now surround them. Take a comparatively small local authority which has a debt of £1,000.000 and an annual service on that debt of £50,000. It must be plain to every Member of the House that, even if conditions improve far more rapidly than the most optimistic among us believe to be possible, the normal work of that local authority must be severely penalised. The time may come when it will be compelled to say that it wants a moratorium or special consideration, being unable to meet these very great liabilities. So several of my hon. Friends and colleagues from the more distressed districts, together with the great bulk of the members for whom I speak, have come to the conclusion that it is only on the basis of some definite State contribution, or the shouldering by the State of some part of the responsibility that this situation can be met. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have no doubt the Minister of Health will say
that in existing financial conditions they cannot entertain a proposal of that kind. Doubtless that will be the line of reply, but it is our duty in this Chamber to look at the facts of the case, and I ask hon. Members to consider what is the real situation which confronts us.
We all recognise that these very heavy burdens on the localities impose a load upon industrial recovery which is far less defensible than the load which is imposed by Imperial taxation. The load on the locality falls upon the industrial enterprise in rates, whether it can pay or not, and, moreover, the load is imposed in this country in a manner which leads to the greatest anomalies and injustices among the local authorities themselves. If the State shoulders any part of the burden, what happens is that you either add that to the public or national indebtedness of the time, and take it away from the indebtedness of the local authority, or, if you try to do it from the revenue of the day, you transfer it from local rate to national tax. The national tax approximates much more closely to the principle of the ability to pay than the local rate can pretend to do under existing conditions. If that be the state of affairs, you have a very strong case, from the standpoint of industrial recovery, for the transference of at least a portion of this burden. Hon. Members on the other side will agree that the real issue before us is not national tax or local rate, but the aggregate burden. That is what industry has to face, and what the masses of the unemployed and of others at the present day have to face, and, accordingly, any re-allocation of that burden, as between national tax and local rate, which will be truer to economic principles is a step which we are taking definitely in the interests of industrial recovery. For that reason it can be defended, both on the ground of principle and also on the ground of practice in the conditions which confront us now. I wish to make that point plain, and to enforce it in this Debate, on behalf of many whose areas are far more severely penalised than my own city can claim to be, bad as it is in the existing conditions.
I pass to the next stage of the Debate. Hitherto, the discussion has turned very largely upon a request for special assistance in some shape or form for what are called necessitous areas, and to-night it is
our duty to direct attention to the change which has overtaken this controversy, and at the hands of the Government itself. Towards the end of last year a Committee was appointed for the purpose of considering in an expert manner schemes which were proposed for the special assistance of these necessitous areas. Those who have studied the report of that Committee will observe that four or five proposals were made and that the bulk of the attention was devoted to one scheme which was propounded by the Borough Treasurer of West Ham. One dare not in a Debate of this kind enter into all the highly technical proposals which were submitted to that Committee. Some of these had regard to the excess number of unemployed, or of people who required Poor Law relief. Others raised problems of rateable valuation. Several had in mind, clearly, some definite State grant, and others contemplated a continuing contribution in relief of local rates. Some, clearly, had in view what is already done for necessitous areas, under the Education Acts, but, one by one, these proposals were turned down by the Goschen Committee on the ground of the anomalies, difficulties and problems which in the judgment of the Committee they contained and which could not be surmounted.
The average person reading that report is forced to the conclusion that it is singularly barren. In other words, the committee said no scheme was practical politics, and accordingly they could not recommend anything. But why did the committee reach such a, negative result? Mainly because of the terms of reference. If the House turns to the terms of reference of the Goschen Committee, they will see that, for all practical purposes, that Committe had no power to initiate anything. They were only asked to consider and report on schemes submitted to them, and, judging from the introductory passages of their Report, they apparently took a very limited view as I regard it of their already limited terms of reference. While it is true that at the end of the Report they said they were not there to suggest that some method could not be found for overcoming the anomalies and difficulties which had been suggested—still they do not propound anything at all. The net effect of this inquiry was to give a lever to
everybody who wanted to make a case against any specific scheme for the relief of necessitous areas. The House will, I think, agree that that is the wrong spirit in which to approach the situation. Here we have a vast mass of unemployed. We had them before the coal stoppage, and we certainly have more as a result of that stoppage. A great burden is imposed on the local authorities and on the early recovery of a great many of our industries, and all that the committee does is to turn down one after another the various schemes propounded on the ground that these schemes contain flaws and anomalies which cannot be removed.
All who have studied the problem of finding a formula for the relief of the necessitous areas in this country will agree that we can never get anything which will satisfy all shades of opinion. That cannot be done, because a very great deal depends upon the view one takes of a scheme of this kind. But surely we ought to go as near as we can to a. suggestion which will be practicable in character and which will bring relief broadly and generally to the districts requiring it most. That is the spirit in which the problem ought to be approached, and that certainly was not the spirit of the Committee to which I have referred. Very soon afterwards, the Government indicated in this House that no scheme for the special assistance of the necessitous areas was under consideration, hot since that time, there has been a development, and this leads me naturally and easily to the third part of what I intend to say.
The Minister of Health indicated some time ago that the Government had in mind a system of block grants or what are usually called fixed grants, although that is a very misleading term, as I think the Minister will agree. These grants were to be awarded on the basis of population, taking into account assessable value per head of the population so far as that was below the average of the country, and it is suggested that by means of a formula of that description you might, within a scheme of block grants, bring assistance to the poorer areas. At the present time, unless I am mistaken, that is the sole proposal which we have in Debate as having been put forward by the Government for the purpose of meeting the
problem now under discussion. That raises very serious issues, because the House will observe that the Government have passed away from any scheme designed purely and simply to help the necessitous areas into the whole problem of the percentage grants or the Exchequer grants to the local authorities in Great Britain. That, of course, is only in keeping with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said some time ago—that he intended to try to find some system of replacing these percentage grants by block or fixed grants, and for the purposes of this Debate we may regard this latest statement as a development of that policy.
The first thing we must point out in that connection is this—and it is an old story now—that in 1922 the Coalition Government, following a recommendation by the Geddes Committee, which many of us thought singularly ill-considered, since it had very little relation to the facts, appointed a Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Meston, for the express purpose of analysing at length the whole system of percentage grants in Great Britain and of making recommendations. That Committee took evidence for rather more than a year from all leading local authorities, and experts of one kind and another, and from people who were in favour of the percentage system as well as from people whe were opposed to it. The history of the Committee is in many respects remarkable, but it is strictly important for the purposes of this discussion to-night. From 1922 until 1925, or until the early part of this year, nothing more was heard of the Meston Committee, and it was perfectly impossible for the members of that Committee to get the chairman to call it together, or for the succeeding Governments of the time to get him to do anything in this matter. May I make it clear, in passing, that I must not be interpreted for one moment at attacking anyone who cannot be present in this Chamber to reply for himself. That is no part of my purpose. I only want to recall to the House these facts, since they are relevant to the subject now before us.
For three or four years it was impossible to get any statement at all from
the Chairman of the Committee who had undertaken to prepare a draft report but, finally, in February, 1926, a draft report was prepared. That was circulated to the Members of the Committee—I am obliged to state this, otherwise the House would not get the facts and our case would be impaired—with a covering note to the effect that the members of the Committee would be called together to discuss it at an early date. From February right down to the present time that step has never been taken and we have thus the extraordinary position that a Committee has sat for more than a year, bas taken some of the most valuable evidence ever given on this subject, has a draft report prepared by its Chairman, and yet all this material is not available to Members of this House at the very time when they are being asked to approve of a substantial alteration in the system of Exchequer grants in this country. That alteration will affect the problem of necessitous areas which is primarily our theme at the moment. No one can defend that state of affairs, but I want to go on to say that 85 per cent. of the evidence tendered to the Meston Committee was in favour of a retention of the system of percentage grants, with which of course hon. Members are quite familiar. These grants are, broadly and generally, 50 per cent. of approved expenditure for purposes of health and education; 75 per cent. for venereal disease treatment; 100 per cent. for certain port sanitary services, dealing with the danger of infection. and various percentages in respect of certain other classes of grants.
That system has been in force for a number of years in this country, and it is designed, as I think the Minister will agree, to minister to what are believed to be inevitably expanding needs in the community, and to supply, on the one side, a certain centralised regulation of the work of the local authorities, and on the other side, to encourage the local authorities, and on some occasions to press them, to undertake those services by the promise that 50 per cent. or 75 per cent. or some other percentage as the case may be of the approved expenditure will be met. Evidence was also tendered to the Meston Committee in favour of what is called the block or fixed system of grants but that evidence was a very small part of the
case submitted to the Committee, and the extraordinary thing is that the draft Report—I am obliged to make this perfectly public—was inconsistent with the great bulk of the evidence tendered to the Committee. The Minister of Health will probably say to-night that he has no knowledge of the report of the Chairman of the Meston Committee.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): There never was a Report.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM: I refer to the draft Report of the chairman. That probably also would be the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but for us on this side the plain fact is this, that the Government are proceeding with a system of block grants which is apparently so far in keeping with what that draft Report, which they have never seen, recommended, and the House is therefore in the remarkable position of being asked to discuss a subject on which it has not this very important evidence, which should be in the possession of every Member upon an occasion of this kind. But while that is the almost ludicrous state of affairs, there are certain other considerations. The Government, apparently, propose to weight the contribution to the local authorities in terms of its extra population with reference to assessable value below the country's average. That is a kind of rough and ready description of the formula, but before any block system is introduced at all, we must remember clearly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government had in mind. They criticised, or seemed to criticise, the percentage grants on the ground that they did not give complete control over an important and growing part of. expenditure, and they also criticised them on the ground that, if they instituted some system of block or overhead grants, that would be consistent with a reduction of the national liability; in other words, it was clearly national economy which was in mind, and I understood they intended to take a certain recent year as the basic year for this purpose, and then to give some form of guarantee to the local authorities that for two or three years ahead that amount, at all events, in aggregate would
be provided for them, and within the block or aggregate so fixed the local authorities would be expected to apply the percentage system within their areas.
If that be a correct description of the state of affairs, it is plain that in total the local authorities of this country are not going to get more than they have had in some recent basic year, and so we are entitled to place these two facts together, namely, first of all, the refusal of any specific provision for the necessitous areas, with all their needs at the moment, and, secondly, the prospect of some fixed or overhead grant for the future which will amount to nothing more in practice than a re-arrangement of the liability or responsibility or burden year by year within the local authorities themselves; in other words, the State has not stepped in in any capacity to help the local burdens arising from the industrial conditions of the past four or five years.
Moreover, to that state of affairs must be added this thought, that the tendency of a great deal of the Government's legislation within recent times has undoubtedly been to increase the burdens upon the local authorities. No doubt the Government would argue that while they diverted £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 from the Road Fund, all the immediate and' prospective needs were met, hut the tendency must be, in a device of that kind, to increase the burdens on the local authorities if the acute needs of a great deal of the road service were not to be neglected. The arrangements for the administration of unemployment insurance benefit were altered in such a way as to enable many of the local authorities to argue that they had got burdens which would not have fallen to them if' this Regulation had been left untouched. Nearly everything points to the fact that in the distressed areas numbers of people tend to oscillate between the Poor Law and the Employment Exchange, with a tendency to settle down upon the Poor Law, resulting in an acute form of burden on the local rates, and to this test may he added many others, the broad effect of which is to fill the local authorities with a good deal of anxiety in existing conditions.
But if the Government contemplate some system of block grants, weighting it in favour of the poorer areas on the basis which I have just described, and
if that is to be the reply of the Govern-merit to-night to this fresh discussion and the many appeals on behalf of these districts, I am bound at once to say to the House that even the draft Report, I believe, contained proposals which, whether or not they are to be revealed ultimately, at all events should be discussed here before any step of the kind is taken. It certainly made it perfectly plain that there should be some kind of standard of efficiency for the country as a whole, and, in the second place, it laid down the argument, supported by a good deal of evidence, that some kind of costing system should be introduced by the local authorities, partly for the purpose of their protection, and partly for purposes of national reassurance that we were getting the best value for the money that was expended. In other words, there was a good deal of constructive suggestion, which amounted to definite conditions, before any alteration of the system of percentage grants was made in the direction of replacing them by a block or fixed sum. In addition, it was made perfectly plain that no step of that kind could be taken without a, good deal of notice to the local authorities in Great Britain, and my case to-night is that the demand for that notice is increased a hundredfold by the enormous burdens which have lately descended upon these bodies. When you have them penalised, as undoubtedly they are at present, you ought not further to prejudice the money they have got to raise by the promise of this national legislation which will weaken or impair their financial position, certainly by restricting the amount which they are to get from national funds, if the purpose of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government is to be achieved. On the very lowest pleading on behalf of these districts several years should be afforded at least before a change of this kind is introduced.
As I understand the idea, the Government may proceed with this during the next. financial year, taking this year through which we are now passing or some recent year as the basic period for the new scheme. That is the state of affairs which this House, in discussing the problem of the necessitous areas, as now altered by the suggestion of the
Government, has to keep clearly in view, and surely the House will agree that it would be singularly unjust to embark upon a scheme of this kind unless we are going to pay some attention to all these valuable Reports of recent years which have asked the public to study the relationship of Imperial and local taxation. The House will recall the elaborate Report of 1914, and the fact that definite Clauses were incorporated in a Bill of that year for giving effect to several of the recommendations of that Royal Commission, that the War intervened and altered the whole situation, and that right down to the present day nothing has been done.. But many of the proposals of these Royal Commissions are now urgent in character. Hon. Members will very likely say that if you are to await the application of proposals of that kind, you will never get any remedy for any area, and you will require years for further legislation. It may be true that some time is required if you are to proceed with a comprehensive scheme, but there were immediate and specific proposals of that Royal Commission in 1914 which might very well be adopted now, which, in point of fact, would bring relief to some of the more distressed of our local authorities, but which, in any case should be part and parcel of any step taken by the House of Commons before we introduce a system of block grants or do anything otherwise to impair the position of the localities.
I have tried to state the ease in these comprehensive terms for this reason, that while we argue very strongly, indeed, first of all, for the necessitous areas, we are driven by the Government's proposals to look to a very much wider field, and I beg the House not only to give us their support for some immediate relief for these areas but, further to safeguard the position for the future by refusing to assent to a scheme of block grants which is premature, which can only add to the burdens of the localities, and which can only further penalise the industrial recovery which, I trust, it is our common purpose to promote.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking in the Debate on Wednesday. referred to the extraordinary differences in the incidence of unemployment and to the fact that if
you draw a line from Bristol in the west to Hull in the east, north of that line you find double the amount of unemployment that you have south of it. That is quite true, for although the amount of unemployment averages 13.6 per cent, for the whole country, we have a very much heavier rate in the northern areas. Whereas in London and in the south-east and south-west of England the average is 7 per cent., when you get to the north-east of England it is 19.7 per cent., or nearly three times as much,, and that 19-7 is an average, so that you can find certain districts and certain trades where the incidence is ever so much heavier. For instance, if you take the north-east coast, you have in the shipbuilding trade 64 per cent. of unemployment, in marine engineering 48 per cent., in pig iron industries 63 per cent., and in iron and steel generally 53 per cent.— a most appalling total. These figures, no doubt, are swoflen on account of the recent coal stoppage, but before that, in the shipbuilding areas, the unemployment ranged from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. If I may give an illustration of the experience of my own town, it will bring home to the House very closely what these figures actually mean, for sometimes one seems to think that here in London, in Whitehall, the necessities of these outlying districts are scarcely appreciated.
In Middlesbrough we have 38,000 insured male workers, and at the present time 15,540 are on benefit, which means that 41 per cent. of the total adult male population are on benefit. In point of fact, the number out of work is even larger, because, owing to the working of the Insurance Act, a large number are getting relief from the guardians and are being denied unemployment benefit. When you come up against figures like these, you realise how the ordinary conditions break down. The normal machinery for dealing with unemployment when it is at 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. breaks down completely in face of figures like 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. If you take the out-relief in Middlesbrough, before the war, in 1914, the average weekly amount spent in outdoor relief was £326, but to-day it is over £4,000 per week, or an increase of over 12 times. No wondeer the poor rate is up from ls. 2d. to 6s. 6d. and the total rate from BS. to 20a,, and no wonder that
people ask why the industrial areas should be left to bear this burden alone. You have in many areas rates of 20s. to 30s., and then, if you turn to residential areas, such as Bournemouth, Blackpool, Southport, or Oxford, you find the total rate is only 7s. or 8s. in the It is not the fault of these industrial areas, nor is it the fault of- the employers or of the employed. They are the victims of the aftermath of the War. It is due to national and to international causes, and we say it should be made a national burden.
This claim for some equalisation of the burden is no new one. Reference has already been made to the Departmental Committee of 1914, but there was a Royal Commission on Taxation sitting in 1901, and their recommendations have not yet been carried out. They admitted there were certain services which should be looked upon as national, including Poor relief, asylums, police, main roads and education. They said that funds should be raised on the basis of ability to pay, and they considered that taxes were more in accord with this principle than rates. In March, 1914, the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation reported that
a considerable increase in the amount of State subvention to local authorities is justifiable and necessary.
Since then nothing has been done to carry out those recommendations. Surely, if it were necessary in 1914—and the terms of reference of that Committee were to make recommendations with a view to legislation at an early date—I think we have reason to ask that what was required in 1914 should be carried out in 1926. No new principle is involved. Already in education there is the necessitous School area grant. The same principle is recognised in the working of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, and the Local Authorities Financial Assistance Act. If it be right that the wealthy parishes of Westminster and St. Georges should contribute to the poverty-stricken parishes of Lime-house and Shoreditch, surely it is equally right that in the provinces the wealthy residents of Bournemouth and Blackpool should contribute to the distressed areas. In Blackpool, for instance, the poor rate last year was 4d. in the pound, while at Merthyr Tydvil it went up to 8s. 9d. These residential areas draw their support from the industrial areas, where
people make money, and then retire to the more salubrious neighbourhoods, and evade their responsibilities.
Apart from the injustice of these inequalities, there is, as the previous speaker said, the very heavy burden on industry, because rates are a first charge on production. You do not wait to see whether there are profits or any income to rate; it is a first charge on production, and falls very heavily on these industries. In my own town, in 1914, the rates were equivalent to Is. per ton of steel produced, and to-day the rates are equal to a charge of 6s. or 7.s. per ton of steel produced, which means a very heavy handicap in competition with the world. The Committee already referred to, appointed by the right hon. Gentleman, although it could find no particular scheme that was watertight, seemed to be in the main in sympathy with proposals on the lines of assistance to necessitous areas, and I suggest that they should be reappointed with wider powers of reference, in order to devise some means whereby these necessitous areas could he eased of their burden. The Prime Minister, speaking on this question on the 29th June, 1925, said he was concerned as to these black spots in industry, and that. the Government were considering whether anything could be done
by subsidies in specially distressed districts in aid of rates, to take that burden off those who manufacture in those districts.
I submit it is time that something was done. Instead of doing anything, tin Government have increased the financial responsibilities of local authorities. Reference has already been made to the raiding of the Road Fund. Whatever may be the merits of that particular ease, the fact remains that the local authorities have so much less to spend on roads than they otherwise would have. Then the education grants have been cut down by Circular 1371 and Memorandum 44, so that if local authorities are to continue education on the same basis, they have to provide more money out of the local rates. Then the Unemployment Fund Grants Committee, working under the Circular of the 15th December last year, very seriously curtailed the grants for public works for the relief of unemployment. Then you have harsher administration of
the Unemployment Insurance Act, which has driven men from the Insurance Act on to the Poor Law, and so swoflen the local rates.
I do hope the Government are not obdurate in these matters. I would appeal to them particularly with regard to the amounts payable by the Unemployment Grants Relief Fund. I do submit that it is infinitely better to provide men with work than with insurance benefit or relief. If the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with that, he has the remedy in his own hands, and will influence the Government to allow the Unemployment Grants Committee to make larger grants to local authorities. instead of making larger grants, they have been cutting them down. For the 12 months ending September last, the total expenditure sanctioned was £11,000,000, as compared with £21,000,000 in the previous 12 months. Surely, it is better to set men to work than to give them relief. Do we realise that, since the Armistice, we have paid away, in hard cash, nearly £400,000,000 in unemployment benefit, out-of-work donation and Poor Law relief? We might have had valuable works of a national character if we had only spent that money in public work. Are we prepared to go on handing out millions of money and getting nothing in return? If the Government have not the vision and foresight themselves to put in hand work they might, at any rate, allow local authorities to get. on with their schemes.
In my own town, we have spent over a million of money, and have got valuable public improvements to show for it, but with rates from 20s. to 30s. in the £, we cannot go on without greater assistance. The relief given by the Government up to the present is only one-third of the total cost, and, believing that this is a national problem, I submit that the Government would do well to grant two-thirds of the cost, and then local authorities would be able to put in hand numerous schemes. In my own town, we have many schemes we could put in hand, if only we had money with which to do it, and I do submit that, instead of paying money for no services rendered, it would be infinitely better to spend money on works of public where you would have national assets to show. It is infinitely better for the men themselves.
They do not want relief; they want work, and I do hope the Government will listen to the appeal of the distressed areas. They have had to carry on long enough. They have borne the heat and burden of the day manfully, and they have a right to appeal to the Government for assistance.

Mr. DENNISON: During the short time I have been in this House, 1 have listened on many occasions to discussions of a similar kind to this one; in fact they have become more or less of a hardy annual, and have become, as far as I am concerned, almost nauseous. But they seem to have had no effect on the Government of the day. The Minister of Health represents one of the seats for the city with which I have the honour to be associated, and I understand that, during the period of his public career in that, city, he took, as a member of the corporation, a very active and useful part in the social life of that city. One of the things, 1 believe, about which he felt very keenly during the period he was on the City Council of Birmingham was this inequality of the industrial areas being called upon to hear an undue share of the burden of maintaining the unemployed. If that were the case then, it is considerably worse to-day. Let us consider some of the facts. During the last two financial years, the Birmingham Guardians have disbursed well over £3,000,000 in relief—considerably more than the other four unions which make up the West Midland area, so described for purposes of statistics. There was given by way of relief an amount equal to no less than 36s. 3d. per head of the population of Birmingham, or three times more per head of the population than industrial towns like Preston, Rochdale, Dudley and Bury. In the city where the Union Jack and patriotism count for so much, we have over 3,700 ex-servicemen and their Tamilies in receipt of Poor Law relief in April last prior to the coal stoppage. Up to April, 1925, 24 unions throughout the country borrowed something like £6,900,000, and eight of those unions borrowed between them £6,000,000, one being the Poor Law Authority of Birmingham, all this for the purpose of relieving unemployment.
Much of this heavy burden in Birmingham, as elsewhere, is undoubtedly due to the niggardly and oppressive policy
pursued by the Minister of Labour, who is also the representative of a seat in Birmingham. Because of the industrial character of this city, it has to bear a rate of 16s. in the £, a great proportion of which is undoubtedly due to the growing burden of Poor Relief consequent upon unemployment. That the protest is not confined to the Labour party in this House or to the Labour members of the City Council of Birmingham is demonstrated by the report which appeared in the "Birmingham Post" of last Wednesday, of a City Council meeting—and, by the way, the majority of the City Council of Birmingham are members of the same party as right hon. and hon. Members opposite—and they carried a Resolution deploring the distress in the City of Birmingham, largely due to unemployment, and an undertaking was given to send a deputation to meet the Government in order that they might do something to relieve the position.
I wish to associate myself to a large extent with some of the things said by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) in respect of the parlous position of the iron and steel industry of this country. If there is any industry in this country which suffers as a result of the War, and particularly as a result of the peace, it is undoubtedly the iron and steel industry. What are the facts? The latest returns show that the workers in the iron and steel industry have the largest percentage of unemployed of any industry in the country, namely, 53 per cent., and a large proportion of them have been unemployed for three or four years. It is not all due to the coal dispute, but has been more or less chronic in this particular industry. The policy pursued by the Minister of Labour in particular in restricting benefits and the conditions under which benefit could be paid to the unemployed has thrown many of them, many whom I know very well indeed, on to the Poor Law. That is not fair or equitable to them, and, besides, there is the effect upon the industry itself in the burden placed on the production of iron and steel. In places like Middlesbrough, Jarrow, Stockton-on-Tees and parts of the north-west of Scotland, it will be found that the local rates are so heavy in consequence of the burden of unem-
ployment, which ought to be a national charge instead of a local charge, that in some of those districts where before the War the local rates used to add something like 6d. a ton to the cost of steel they are now responsible for an addition in the region of 7s. per ton.
I do not know that there is any object in saying a great deal more, though we could say much more if we thought there was a possibility of convincing the Government that they ought to initiate a bold scheme for taking over the whole cost of unemployment as a national charge instead of a local one. I urge that for more reasons than one, but there is one which has peculiar application to the iron and steel trade. When the peace was made, it was one of the conditions that Germany should give this country something like 2,000,000 tons of shipping as reparations. I may tell some hon. Members who perhaps do not know it, though there are many who know it better than I do, that to produce that quantity of shipping would have meant two years' full employment of every shipyard in this country. That 2,000,000 tons of shipping from Germany laid our shipyards idle and our iron and steel works idle, and if, as I assume hon. Members on the other side will say, it was a national advantage that we should take 2,000,000 tons of shipping from Germany, those who suffered in consequence of that advantage to the nation ought to have the loss made up to them by the nation. The day has arrived when the country and the nation must assume full responsibility for its helpless and destitute unemployed, rather than leaving them to be a burden on the localities, and causing individuals to suffer when there is no necessity for them to do so.

Mr. WEST RUSSELL: It is not surprising that hon. Members opposite should have sought once again an opportunity of discussing necessitous areas, nor is it surprising that the Government should have provided the opportunity, for concern about the mounting rates is widespread throughout the country. Those of us who represent industrial areas, especially areas which for a considerable time have experienced great depression, are well aware of the consternation and the dismay with which not only the ratepayers there but those responsible for local affairs regard the terrific burden
which is being laid upon them. It is quite true that this is a subject that is almost threadbare. Already in this short Session two days have been given to the discussion of this question, and not only this Government, but all Governments from the time of the Coalition and before it, have been confronted with this problem of the necessitous areas. But while hon. Members opposite desire an opportunity for further discussion, so do hon. Members on this side, although the motives may be slightly different. I suppose the motives of all of us are mixed, and, that applies not only to individuals but to Government and to Opposition alike.
I would be the last to suggest that there are not hon. Members opposite who are very anxious to find a way of deliverance from this thraldom of debt into which so many of our industrial areas have been brought, but I think hon. Members will at least admit that we have some ground for suspecting that this Debate was not sought with a single eve to the solution of this problem. Only the other day we had a discussion upon a Vote of Censure upon the Government. The coal stoppage had been brought to an end. The country was indignant that so mad and so maddening an experience had been brought upon it. There were recriminations, and some of the bitterest of those recriminations emanated from Members of the other side and were directed towards their own party, and the object of that Vote of Censure was to direct some of those recriminations away from their own party towards the Government. It seems to me that part of the case tonight is to suggest that much of the difficulty with which the areas have been confronted has been due in great part to the action of the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour. I have heard it suggested that this problem is due—

Miss LAWRENCE: The point I want to make is a short one. We have seen that, under the strain of unemployment, very many of the industrial and colliery districts have become absolutely insolvent. We are dealing with very large figures indeed. The ordinary budget of local authorities for the last normal year totalled £142,000,000. Out of that sum, £15,000,000 was for out-relief, as contrasted with £2,000.000 or £3,000,000 before the War. The Minister has told us that, during the six months ended 30th
September, an additional £8,000,000 of out-relief was given. We know that the two months of October and November were very bad, and that December is not a good one, and we can hardly hope that we shall have more than two months or six weeks of normal conditions before the end of the financial year in March. In consequence, one is making a very moderate estimate, a very cautious estimate indeed, an estimate which I think is too low, if we say that in this financial year the authorities will have spent £25,000,000 under this head. That is an enormous figure.
The strain of unemployment caused by the coal dispute was a strain very much greater in degree, but not different in kind, from the strain which had been inflicted on the industrial and the colliery districts ever since the War was over and unemployment set in. That is in the nature of things. It was felt before the War. A district where there are many industrial houses is a district with the very worst class of property for rateable value, no buildings are of so poor a rateable value as the houses which house the industrial population, and there is no population which makes so great a demand upon the rates. Such a population as that needs elementary education and needs all kinds of health services, and so we have the position that the poorer a district is, the larger the demands upon its rates. That produced an extraordinary difference in rates in normal years, before the coal dispute began, a. difference extraordinarily unfair and burdensome. People are very fond of saying that this is a question of administration, that the localities with the high rates are prodigal, but that. is not true.
If one looks at the return of the Ministry of Health showing the amount raised per head of the population of a locality, which is roughly the amount spent from the rates per head, it will be seen that the districts with the high rates are often the most economical. Let me take one of the best places in England, Eastbourne. In the last completed year Eastbourne had a rate of 9s. 5d. It spent £4 11s. per head of its population. All the amenities of the world were lavished upon the citizens of Eastbourne. Middlesbrough only spent £3 13s. per head of its population, and
had a rate of 18s. 8d. Sheffield only spent £3 9s. per head, and had a rate of 16s. 6d. East Ham spent a little more per head than Eastbourne, being very much burdened by its own pauperism and by its contribution to the West Ham borough. East Ham spent £4 17s. per head of its population, as against Eastbourne's £4 11s., and it had a rate last year of 23s. 5d. in the pound as against Eastbourne's 9s. 5d. Therefore, it will be seen that the sacrifices demanded are the greatest in the industrial areas which are the poorest and where the civic amenities are the least. That is always so, and it is in the nature of things. Wherever you have a large industrial population you have to face that state of things. It is in those districts where municipal life is over-burdened by the effects of general unemployment that the terrific weight of all this expense due to the coal stoppage has fallen, and, as a result, a great many of those areas are so far insolvent that they cannot pay their current expenses out of revenue.
This Debate has been initiated not to state the case, because it has been stated often enough, but for the purpose of getting, to know what the Minister of Health proposes to do. First of all, some relief is necessary for those districts which have absolutely broken down under this burden. We want to know what the Minister of Health is going to do with regard to the burden of these loans I What is he going to do with the loans borrowed with his consent? I wish to stress the point "borrowed with his consent," because in every one of these cases the right hon. Gentleman and his assistants have been satisfied that the loans applied for were absolutely necessary, and he has imposed in regard to those loans all the conditions he thought proper. Therefore, with every respect to the Minister of Health, I wish to point out that he has consented to the granting of those loans, and has satisfied himself that they were granted quite rightly.
What is he going to do about those loans? Is the right hon. Gentleman going to play the part of an ordinary creditor getting as many pounds, shillings, and pence out of those poor districts as he can without regard to the needs of the local schools and
other local services? If not, I would like to ask if we are going to have some sort of Dawes plan under which, just as the resources of Germany were mortgaged to the Allies, so the resources of these unfortunate districts are to be mortgaged to the Treasury. If we are not going to have anything of that kind, I would ask: Are we going to have what I think is the only sensible thing, that is a forgiveness of these loans? All these districts have carried a burden which the State ought to have carried. They have pledged their credit and they have got their local finances into a most horrible position. I want to know if the State is going to shoulder those burdens by something in the nature of a Dawes plan, the ordinary creditor taking whatever amount in the pound he can secure. This matter is very important. At the present time the schools are in a very bad state, and they want to improve very much their civic amenities but they have not the money to spend upon them. I want to know under these circumstances what is going to be done in regard to these loans? What is going to be done to put the necessitous districts on a proper footing?
We have had a little more light on this question. We have heard that the Minister of Health has been suggesting block grants in order to benefit the necessitous areas. He has asked the municipalities to prepare a scheme, and we have had a long report on the subject dealing with the county councils concerned. I notice that about £4,000,000 is to be distributed from the grant in relief of agricultural rates, and with the best will in the world 1 cannot understand the basis upon which that is to be distributed. The health grants and the Poor Law grants are to be weighted in order to give necessitous areas more in proportion having regard to the relation between the population and the assessable value per head. To give grants in proportion to the rateable value per head is an excellent thing, and I have been in favour of it ever since the report of Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee was issued. At the time it was said that this kind of talk was all nonsense and that the suggestion was impossible. On the contrary, it is not an. impossible suggestion, but is a, scientific
plan recommended by Royal Commission after Royal Commission.
The proper way is to distribute these grants to the various areas according to their capacity to pay, but I know the main point is, where is the money to come from? That is an extremely interesting point. Under the block grant system necessitous areas are to have a little more money at the expense of those surrounding areas which are not so necessitous. Under this scheme London will lose £311,000 a year and Birmingham £151,000 a year. Liverpool will lose £112,000 while West Ham will gain £7,000 and Sheffield will gain £8,000 or equal to a id. rate. The necessitous areas where the rates are very high will gain very little. I do not say that 20. in the £ is not a very welcome relief to West Ham, but to give relief amounting Lo about 2d. or 3d. in the £ to districts faced with such colossal rates as Middlesbrough, Sheffield, Newcastle and so forth is to give a very small measure of relief indeed.
When we asked for these additional grants we certainly did not contemplate that the local authorities as a whole should pay for them. What we wanted was more money from the Treasury. That is a very simple matter. When you have to find some £25,000,000 to make good what has been spent during these difficult times by our various Poor Law authorities you do not want a re-arrangement like the one which has been suggested, hut You want more money, and nothing but that will do any good. When you have an industrial district with rates 20s. in the and over, a burden which is killing the industries in that district, what you want from the Treasury is more money and plenty of it. We want to know exactly where we stand. If the nation will not shoulder the burden of unemployment, and if we cannot have from the Treasury something corresponding to the amount required to meet this excessive outdoor relief, unless you get something comparable to the amount required, you are really not doing anything effective to relieve the distress of necessitous areas. That is my point, and that is the reason I ask what are we going to do with regard to these loans. Is it really true that the grant-in-aid is going to amount only to 2d. in the £ in all these very poor localities. We want to know exactly where we stand, and how
much the shoe will continue to pinch under the scales which have been laid down by the Minister of Health.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): If there be one thing I dislike more than another in addressing this House it is that I should have to repeat myself over and over again. That does not seem to be a sentiment shared by hon. Members opposite, because it seems to me that the more often they make a speech on this subject the more they enjoy it, and once more they have initiated another debate on this subject. Already we have discussed this subject four times since last March. On this occasion I welcomed the advent of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), because I know he is gifted with great ingenuity, and I had some hopes that he would introduce some new element which would give me something fresh to say. I am afraid, however, that I have been rather disappointed, and although the right hon. Gentleman certainly introduced a new element, it is one which is not very helpful to the House.
The right hon. Gentleman devoted part of his speech to the discussion of a Report which has never been made by the Meston Committee, and in another part he criticised proposals which the Government have not yet formulated. Altogether there seems to be a good deal about this Debate what is somewhat shadowy and unreal.
Perhaps I may now come to some of the points to which attention has been drawn. With regard to revenue there are two aspects, namely, the temporary and the permanent aspect. With regard to the temporary aspect, the suggestion has been made by the right hon. Gentleman that we should give some form of special assistance and that argument was used by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr T. Thomson) and the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence), but not one of those hon. Members has produced any really adequate suggestion as to how any special assistance should be measured or allotted except the hon. Member for East Ham North who proposes a general forgiveness of sins and a complete reimbursement, at the expense of the general taxpayer, of all the unions which have got into debt through the coal stoppage.
That is a very characteristic suggestion coming from her. We know that the hon. Member for East Ham North always quarrels with me when I make conditions in order to be quite certain that the money will be spent with due regard to economy, and it appears sufficient for her charitable heart to know that a union is in distress, and in such cases she is always ready to be generous at someone else's expense.

Miss LAWRENCE: What I said was that it was very undesirable that the conditions in regard to these loans should be fixed by the mere will of the Minister of Health and what I objected to was the Minister's judgment as to the conditions.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Then it is the Minister the hon. Member objects to and not the conditions In regard to that matter I am content to leave myself to the judgment of the House. I may point out to other hon. Members who are not so indiscriminate in their generosity that there are a good number of circumstances which should be taken into account before we decide whether anything is necessary to be done in the way of special assistance, and if anything is necessary, in what proportions assistance should be given to this or that authority. I have examined just casually the position in some unions where the distress has been greatest, and I find that on the whole they are not as had as one might naturally have expected. For instance, I find that in a number of them the total indebtedness could be wiped off by an extra rate of 2d. in the £. In others it amounts to more, up to Qs. I think there are only four which are over 10s. There is one over 15s., and there is one which is over 32s.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean above the existing rate?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, yes, an extra rate. It does not follow that they would necessarily wipe off the whole indebtedness in a single year. I merely show that it would be sufficient to impose an extra rate of the amount I have mentioned to get rid of their indebtedness on current account. When one finds such enormous discrepancies it is the duty of
the Minister, even if that Minister were the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence), to see whether there is any other explanation besides misfortune or geographical position. I will take the one so far in excess of all the others, Bedwellty. Thirty-two shillings and ten-pence would be necessary as an extra rate to wipe off the indebtedness. The position of Bedwellty is now being inquired into by one of my inspectors. I am not therefore going to pass any judgment on it until I get his report, but I am bound to say that reports have been made to me alleging that considerable irregularities have been taking place there. I am told, for instance, that a large number of additional relieving officers have been appointed, some of them being former members of the local council, and that relief has been given on the orders of a special relief committee, which is an independent body, and, I think, was one of the successors to the council of action in operation at the time of the strike. I do not say those things are true. They are the sort of things that are alleged.

Mr. MAXTON: It is worth mentioning to create prejudice.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not to create prejudice but to show that there may be circumstances which should be taken into consideration in deciding whether people in other unions should be called upon to help to pay these amounts. That is not an unreasonable proposition.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not want to be unfair to the right hon. Gentleman. I never dissented from the proposition that reasonable care should be taken in the expenditure of money. I am dissenting to the right hon. Gentleman throwing out a sheer story, a yarn, to prejudice the position that is being discussed quite coofly and amicably. Nobody on this side has made any foul suggestions against you.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is unnecessarily sensitive. If I am to carry on an argument, I must give illustrations of what I mean.

Mr. MAXTON: Try and tell the plain, simple truth. Give us fact, not fiction.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My point is that before one comes to any conclusion as to the necessity or desirability of giving assistance to unions that are in difficulties
it is necessary that one should very carefully examine all the circumstances. Of course there are other differences between one union and another. By some unions relief has been given on loan. In those cases the burden upon the ratepayers will be very materially decreased as the loans are paid off. In other cases, there has been no such course taken. In the case, I think, of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. West Russell) an additional rate has already been levied, and the borrowing is constantly becoming less. It is unfair, in the case of a union which has Voluntarily imposed on itself an extra rate, that it should also have to pay its share of Government assistance being given to another union where no such steps have been taken. Therefore, I say, generally, the time has not come when it is possible to consider what course it may be necessary to take arising out of the special circumstances of the coal stoppage. Guardians are for the present being financed by Gosehen loans. We have not fixed a time for repayment, and we have said before, and I say it again if the hon. Member still asks me the question, the position will be reviewed next February. That will be the time when we will see what relief it is still necessary to give as a temporary measure, what number of men will be thrown out of work permanently by the pits having been closed, what amount of money is to be paid back again on loans, and what alteration may be made in the valuation of collieries.
Now I come to another position, because I recognise once more that, quite apart from the exceptional incidence of unemployment during the last few months, there has for a long time been a problem which is generally known as the problem of the necessitous areas. It is the problem of the places with industrial populations and low valuations and this unfortunate position, that the very fact of the high rates on industries takes away from their competitive power and consequently tends again to increase unemployment and bring about further demands on the ratepayers. I come back now to the right hon. Gentleman. He says he is entitled to debate the question of block grants inasmuch as I have indicated in a previous Debate that it was in that direction I was looking for a permanent solution
of the problem. With regard to the Goschen Committee, I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware how that Committee arose. It was not appointed by me, as an hon. Member suggested. It was appointed by the Prime Minister, and it arose out of the deputation which came to see the Prime Minister and impressed upon him. certain schemes, and in particular a scheme known as the West Ham scheme. It was in response to a request from that deputation that the Prime Minister consented to appoint a Committee to see whether the difficulties were difficulties which could be overcome. That was why the Committee was appointed, and that is how the terms of reference arose.
The Committee intimated that although they had tried to see whether the West Ham scheme could be amended, they bad been unable to find any way of amending it which would make it a workable scheme. I came up against the same difficulty as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen came up against when they were in office. The right hon. Gentleman says that throws upon the Government the responsibility of finding another scheme. I do not know that 1 am prepared to say that we ought to shirk that responsibility. It is for the Government to find a solution of the various problems. I believe it will be possible to find a permanent solution of the question of the necessitous areas along the lines of the block grant system. I know the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. MacLaren) would find the solution in a different way. The right hon. Gentleman says we ought not to embark upon any scheme of block grants without having before us the evidence of the Meston Committee.
I am bound to say I am not altogether without experience in this matter. I have been discussing block grants with local authorities for many months. Their criticism was not based on block grants in particular, but upon their belief that the proposal in its particular form was not going to be advantageous to them. The hon. Member for East Ham North says, "The arrangement is no good to me. It is your money I want." That is not unlike the attitude of the local authorities. They want to see a proposition which will put them in a better position than they were in before. Therefore, I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's sug-
gestion that if I had seen and considered the evidence tendered to the Meston Committee I should have taken a different view of the possibility of block grants. The hon. Member for East Ham North has examined the provisional proposals which were put out by the Minister of Health in connection with the suggested reform of the Poor Law system, and she has discovered, to her great delight, that under these proposals the situation in West Ham would be worse than it is today. Is that not so?

Miss LAWRENCE: I said that West Ham would be given a little, but not nearly enough.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: At any rate, the hon. Member was very pleased that she had found a flaw, and I should be sorry to grudge her any enjoyment of her consideration of the proposals as they have appeared. I would like at the same time to warn her that it would be unwise for her to have any confident expectation of disaster to our proposals on considering all those figures.
I may, perhaps, be allowed to remind the House of what I said on the 13th May last. I then reminded the House that the Rating and Valuation Act had been the first step in the possible progress towards block grants. I spoke of the proposal to transfer the functions of the boards of guardians to the local authorities, and I then said:
When that has been done, we will then be equipped for undertaking a scheme which I believe will be equitable and fair, and which will have the double effect of taking into account the whole of the expenditure in the whole of the area, the whole burden of expenditure of the area qualified by the policy to be pursued, and at the same time by a system of block grants release the local authorities from the detailed control now necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May,. 1926; col. 1041, Vol. 195.]
It will be seen from that quotation that, in speaking of the block grant system as a possible solution of the problem of necessitous areas, I was not merely speaking of block grants in connection with health services. That is an item in the whole. Therefore, as the Government have not yet put forward any proposals for a general block grant, I merely express my personal views on the matter. I wish to make it perfectly plain that what I said on the 13th May was not confined merely to one service in respect of which Exchequer assistance is given to
local authorities, but was intended to cover a. much wider area.
The situation, summed up in a few words, is this: So far as any temporary difficulties are concerned arising out of the prolonged coal stoppage, we are taking whatever steps are necessary to finance the unions for the present, until we have sufficient data before us to enable us to make a final survey of the situation. With regard to the permanent difficulty about necessitous areas, that, I believe, is capable of solution, not by special grants founded upon temporary circumstances, but by, perhaps, a better allocation of the burdens as between unemployment insurance on the one side, as suggested by the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Dennison), and the. Poor Law authorities on the other. The two systems have become very much entangled together at present, and a new allocation on permanent lines of such assistance as is given by the Exchequer will, I believe, bring some relief to these overburdened areas.

Mr. HARNEY: The Minister of Health, in his opening remarks, said that this discussion had given him the opportunity of delivering a speech on a subject which had several times been discussed in this House. It may be satisfactory to him to know that I am giving him the first of a series, because I have not had the opportunity of speaking on this subject before. There can be no doubt that the present system of meeting local services out of rates is one that operates with great injustice, and, indeed, most injuriously, to industry, and I take it that the main object for a discussion such as we are now having is, not to effect any immediate reform, but to throw out suggestions and proposals which ultimately may be shaped into a reviewing and a remedying of the whole system. Of course, contributions must be obtained from the public 'for local and general services. Some of those contributions come through the channel of general taxation; others come through the channel of local taxation; and I rather think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it is more just to the individual and more beneficial to trade to derive as much as possible of the contributions for public and social services through the channel of general taxation.
There are three good reasons why that is so. To start with, general taxation comes out of profits; it comes out of something that is going into the pocket; it is a slice off something that is earned. Local taxes or rates come equally whether there is profit or loss, and there very often is a loss. Where that occurs, the rates either have to come out of capital—and, of course, if that be continued, it is the high road to bankruptcy—or they have to found in a higher production, which necessarily limits the market. That is, undoubtedly, one respect in which rates are worse than taxes. Then, again, the rates fall upon the very instruments of production. If factories are enlarged, if shops are improved, if equipment is added to, up go the rates; and that, of course, must have the effect of limiting the instruments of production and lowering the output: The third reason, and I think it is the strongest, and the one that really hits necessitous areas, is that, while taxation falls over the whole body, rates press upon a vital part. They press upon centres of industrial activity; they press, so to speak, upon the heart, and, the feebler its beating, the greater the pressure, because it is where business is low, where destitution is great, that you have shopkeepers trying to pull along, that you have factories on half time, and it is in just those places and for those reasons that the burden of rates is heavier than ever.
Therefore, I should say, on general principles, that, where it is at all possible, these social and public services should be placed upon general taxation. Of course, they ought not to be all so transferred; there is a great deal to be said for keeping alive local patriotism; but there are many that should be transferred. I dare say this is very old ground for the right hon. Gentleman, but still I would like to emphasise this, that a distinction ought, undoubtedly, to be drawn in the case of the class of services which are local in character and in cost, which are normal, such as education, public health, and so on. That class of services might well be left on the rates, because, after all, it can do no great harm; it recurs with fair regularity, and it can never lead to the dangerous expedient, which we have experienced lately, of supplementary rates.
There is a vast distinction, in my submission, between money required for that class of services and money required for unemployment relief. No one can say that unemployment relief to-day is in any sense local. It may have been so in the time of Queen Elizabeth; it may have been so even in the time of the Act of 1834; but it is not so with the development of industry to-day. Industries today are so interdependent that a depression in Manchester may result in throwing men out of employment in the shipyards of South Shields. The point of outbreak of unemployment is not the seat of the ailment at all; it is a mere symptom of the disease in the whole system of national industry. Therefore, the rates might well be relieved altogether from the payment of this relief of unemployment. Of course, it may be said that unemployment relief ought really not to fall upon the rates at all—that, if unemployment is of the ordinary kind, it is met under the Insurance Act, while if it is of an exceptional kind, as in the case of this large strike, where men have not paid for their benefit, what, right have they to get relief? In theory, that is so; able-bodied men are not entitled to relief under the Poor Law. But we know how that is got over, as in the Merthyr Tydvil case, where it was said that dependants were still entitled to relief, and we know that the Act of 1918 made guardians amenable, or sympathetic, to that view.
Practically the effect is that, when you have a great strike like that, the households are entitled to relief, and whatever you deny in unemployment benefit you must give them through the guardians—it is as broad as it is long. In fact, the whole system of extended benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act is a recognition of that principle. Where a man is unable to show that he is actuarially entitled to benefit, the Government come in and say, "We will work out a device whereby, under the pretence of carrying on this industrial insurance, we will give a grant from the Exchequer to enable these men to be paid in the form of extended benefit." I have seen this working in my own constituency last year. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced the Government fraction of contribution towards unemployment benefit, I, for one, said that it
would react. When, again, the Minister of Labour announced that the giving of extended benefit would be made discretionary, we also said that that would react. By reason of these two things, as those of us who live in industrial areas know, thousands of people who would have got their benefit at the door of the Employment Exchange, simply walked away from that door and got their benefit at the door of the guardians; they got at one place what was denied to them at the other. All, therefore, that has been done by this alleged economy has been to transfer on to the rates what would have otherwise come on to the taxpayer and on to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. It was a penny wise and pound foolish policy, because, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to say that he had made a saving in the current year, he has reduced the revenue of the oncoming year in so far as he has handicapped industry.
What, then, are the suggested remedies? We have to recognise in this age that the households of the community must be kept, either by the work of those who are at the head of them or by the work of others. Shall the work of the others be confined to the near neighbourhood, or shall it be spread over the whole country? I have argued, so far, that it ought to be spread, certainly as regards unemployment relief, over the whole country. How is that to be done? The first way in which it was dealt with was under the Goschen scheme, but, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, the Goschen scheme, as I have seen it working, is quite futile. You get a loan from the Ministry to distressed areas. It has to be paid back within a short time with interest, and, when it is paid back, what is saved in one half-year has to be borne in the next half-year. I am surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say—perhaps I misunderstood him—that these loans are not called in quickly. In my constituency there are two loans of £40,000—that is £80,000. Both fall to be paid within the current half year. I wrote to the, Minister and asked if it was not possible to defer the payment of one of them to the half year coming on. The answer was that they could not do so. So your loans are no good.
Now we have the block grant suggestion. As far as I understand it, it
is all right when you apply it to the class of demands from the rates which are normal and regular in character and may be predicted, such as the demands for ordinary poor relief and public health. But what good are your block grants in the sort of difficulty we are now in? How can you apply them to a strike? Who can know the place where a strike is going to be? Who can know the duration of it? Who can know the demand per head of the strikers? We were told in the last Debate that the amount of relief granted per head during the strike of 1921 was infinitely less than the amount of relief given in the strike of 1926, and it was rather suggested that that was due to the guardians being too lavish. Really, it is not so. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the guardians along the Tyne have observed the conditions of the Circular sent them, and have not given relief to persons who are disentitled. The reason it was higher is that the 1921 strike came after a fat period, when the colfers of the unions were full and the savings banks were full of the men's savings. When the 1926 strike came those sources were exhausted.
I do not quite agree with the slogan of the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence) that what we want is money, though there is a good deal of point in it. What I understood her to mean was that you do not deal with this question by financial operations, shifting a burden from one back on to another. We had proof of the futility of that last year when the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought he was very clever in reducing payments from the Unemployment Insurance Fund, which only resulted in driving persons from the door of the Employment Exchange to the door of the boards of guardians and getting from the rates what they were denied from the taxes. What is really meant by saying we want money is this. The only way to solve this problem is that money must be had, and the same amount of money must be had, irrespective of whether it comes from rates or from taxes, and the only way to solve it is to take the full amount required for the relief of unemployment directly from the taxes. And how do you do that? I should say, by very much more liberally distributing benefits
under unemployment insurance. Distribute them in full up to the point when scientifically you must stop on an actuarial basis.
After that point, instead of going through the complicated device of your extended benefit, which is really a grant under the name of insurance—what insurance in the world could justify on a scientific basis the style of thing that is now being done by money being paid by the Treasury to the Insurance Fund and dofed out from it—the real way to look at it is openly and frankly. "Men, to the extent of your contributions, and those of the employers and the State, we will give you as much as we can. When abnormal periods arrive, when the machinery breaks down, we will make direct grants from the State." It may disturb the Chancellor of the Exchequer but the more money comes out of our pockets, and it is far better, since the money has to be found, that it should come from the pockets of the whole community than that it should come from the pockets of already badly stricken people in the neighbourhood in which the unemployment exists. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to do anything, except that I hope he will make good what he said as far as South Shields is concerned. I understood him to say the loans are not to be called in at this specified time, but that allowances are to be given.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid the hon. Member misunderstood me. What I said was that no term of repayment for the most part attaches to the particular loans that are running at present, but the situation will be reviewed in February, when a final decision will have to be taken.

Mr. HARNEY: If that be so, I hope something will be done. There was one loan of £40,000. That was found to be insufficient and it was immediately followed by another loan. I understand both loans are falling due, and it is because of that that it will be necessary to have a supplementary rate. If it is possible to extend payment of the second £40,000 for six months, it will not be necessary to raise that rate.

Mr. BARKER: The right hon. Gentleman said serious allegations had been made with reference to the administra-
tion of relief in the Bedwellty area, and he would not prejudice the position because he had appointed an officer to make a special investigation. Strange to say, immediately after those words, he made these, up to the present, unproved allegations against the Guardians.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I made no allegations against the Guardians; I simply said allegations had been made.

Mr. BARKER: The right hon. Gentleman said the allegations were that certain miners had been appointed assistant relieving officers. I should like to know if he objects to that in an area where there are nothing but miners, and where there are about 10,000 miners unemployed. Is it not a natural thing to appoint one of these unemployed men to perform this duty instead of having him charitably relieved at the expense of the guardians? I do not understand the point in a charge of that character. I should like to know who should administer this relief if it is not those most intimately acquainted with the conditions of the district. He said allegations had been made that relief had been dispensed by some unconstitutional body known as the Council of Action. I am the Member for that area, and have been for three years on the board of guardians. Although there is a Labour majority, there is a very strong minority who are not Labour, and if there was anything of the kind the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, they would have seen that he had notice of it long before 1926. This has been a necessitous area for five years, and its poverty has been many times mentioned in the House, but I have never known a single allegation made against the guardians until to-night. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had refrained from prejudicing the position, because he has prejudiced it, and provoked a well-merited interruption and protest from the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr Maxton), which I cordially endorse. This is one of the most distressed areas in the whole of the country. It is essentially a mining area, and there have been somewhere about 10,000 miners unemployed for the last five years. Many deputations have gone to the Department, and the right hon. Gentleman has had consultations with the representatives of the guardians, but as far as I
know, in no single case has he made a charge of maladministration against them. He has drawn up scales, which he has embodied as a condition of his loans, and they have been faithfully administered. It would have become him much better if he had refrained from making these allegations until he had a report from the officer who is investigating.
What is the condition of this area? In round figures there is a debt of somewhere between £900,000 and £1,000,000 incurred by the guardians. There are, in addition, other debts of the local governing bodies. This astounding debt arises almost entirely through unemployment. The interest on the loans amounts to somewhere about £400 a week. The area is, and has been burdened during the whole of these years with this vast Volume of unemployment. The guardians have been doing their work as well as they possibly could without fee or reward, and they have made many appeals to the Government, through their representatives in this House, to do something to relieve the position of these distressed areas. Before the coal stoppage took place at all this board was nearly £700,000 in debt.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—

Mr. BARKER: When I was interrupted, I was saying that to suppose that a debt of this magnitude was due to bad administration, was about as absurd a suggestion as could possibly be made. Unfortunately, this debt is not due to bad administration by the guardians but it is due to bad administration by the Government. Had the Government taken over their responsibilities instead of putting the burden of unemployment upon poverty-stricken areas, we should not be discussing this problem to-night. The last time this matter was before the House, I think it was on the, 16th November, the Minister of Health paid a splendid tribute to the boards of guardians for the way in which they had performed their duty during a very trying period. He made no qualifications, but paid a tribute to the efficiency of the guardians throughout the whole country. Tonight, we find him singling out one
special area, which has been burdened with more unemployment than any other area, for special condemnation.
I hope the Government will realise, before long, the condition of these necessitous areas, otherwise local government will absolutely break down. We have conic to the point when it takes all the revenue of these areas to pay the interest upon the loans which they have borrowed to meet their financial difficulties, and unless the Minister of Health tackles this problem in the way he suggested that he would tackle it when he spoke on the 16th November, by making block grants to these areas, the areas will become submerged by their indebtedness and be unable to function. Bedwellty is essentially a mining area. There have been over 10,000 unemployed in that area for a long period. Opposite where I live, there is a very large colliery which normally employed 1,000 men, but it has been closed for a year and nine months. In this area the best seams of coal have been worked out. The area is not able to meet its financial obligations normally, and when it has to meet these additional obligations, the position becomes hopeless. I appeal to the Government to realise the position of these areas and of the people who are living in them. In the particular area to which I have referred the rates are now 20s. in the pound, and they have been as high as 37s. 6d. in the pound. The miners, poverty-stricken as they are, have had to meet an extra rental charge of from 3s. to 4s. a week through the terrible effects of unemployment prevailing in the area. It is high time the Government seriously came down to this problem and attempted to assist these areas in some practical form.

Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: The industrial conditions which have emerged in this country in recent years have placed upon local areas a burden which will seriously cripple their activities for years to come and, in addition, will undoubtedly put upon industry in those areas a burden that will make industrial recovery very difficult, unless the Government in some form or another are prepared to come to the assistance of the local authorities in the areas. The part of the problem with which I wish to deal is the financial position in the mining
areas. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that this particular problem was to receive his special attention. The condition of affairs in mining areas may be said to have been largely contributed to by the struggle that has taken place in the mining industry this year. Some of my fellow Members may remind me that we on these benches have contributed to some degree at least in bringing about the position of affairs that exists in mining areas. Evidently, from what the right hon. Gentleman said, that is being stated outside even if it is not to be stated inside this House in this Debate.
May I remind hon. Members opposite and the Minister of Health that the policy that has been followed by local authorities in the areas to which I am calling special attention, is the policy of the Government. Therefore the local authorities are strongly of the opinion that the Government ought to shoulder at least a considerable share of the burden that has been imposed upon them in carrying out the policy of the Government in respect of emergency relief. May I give one or two examples from my own constituency of the burden that has been imposed upon certain parish councils in mining areas? I have here particulars of three parish councils, but I will only quote two examples, because I do act wish to burden the House with a long speech or with a large number of figures. These two examples are typical of what is occurring in all the mining areas in Scotland and they are also typical of what is occurring in every one of the mining areas of Great Britain.
The first example is the parish of Auchterderran, which has a population of 20,000, entirely mining. The total cost of emergency relief between the 15th May and the 6th December in that parish amounted to £28,901, equal to £1 10s. per head of the population. This sum paid out in emergency relief is equal to an increase of almost 9s. in the pound on the rates. The other example is the case of the parish of Ballingry. There the population totals 10,348. They have spent in the same period in emergency relief £17,671, equivalent to an increased rate of 7s. 9d. in the pound. The burden of debt has accumulated in these two parishes. In the case of Auchterderran it amounts to 41,88s, and in the case of
Ballingry £27,996. When I use the term "debt." I mean overdrafts to the bank and money advanced by the Scottish Board of Health. The experience of these two small mining parishes is typical of the experience in every one of the mining areas in Scotland, and also in Great Britain, because I find from a statement recently issued that, if we take the largely mining areas in England and Wales, the counties of Cumberland, Durham, Northumberland, Yorkshire and Wales, the increased debts in loans and overdrafts between 1925 and 1926 run from 100 per cent. to 600 per cent.
8.0 p.m.
Notwithstanding what has been said by the Minister of Health to-night, it is evidently the intention of the Government that that enormous burden is to be added to by these parish authorities being compelled to continue paying relief to able-bodied unemployed miners who have been left out of work despite the fact that the dispute has ended. If a policy of that kind is to be carried out, it is surely contrary to the expressed intention of the Prime Minister and a number of the leading members of his Cabinet in the course of the struggle, because they led both the miners and the parish councils to believe that as soon as the struggle ended unemployment insurance benefit would be provided. Up till now, whatever is to happen in the immediate future, that burden is being shouldered by our local authorities. I find that in the two cases I have quoted, in the parish of Auchterderran it will mean an additional burden of £800 a week, and in Ballingry it will mean £625 a week. Surely this is a matter that demands the immediate attention of the Government, if the expressed intention of the Prime Minister and other leading members of the Government is to be given effect to. Evidently the intention of the Ministry of Labour is entirely in the opposite direction. I have here a statement that has been issued by the chief officials of the Ministry of Labour to our local unemployment officers, dealing with the position of the payment of unemployment insurance benefit. It says:
The position at each Colliery has to be determined separately. The stoppage of work due to the dispute must he held to continue until there is a full resumption of work at the pit. If that is not the ease, and the reason is that the places are in disrepair or flooded
because of the prolonged stoppage, we must disallow claims until the repairs are effected. We must know exactly in each case why work was not available. Please obtain these facts from the owners, and send us as full reports as possible. A separate report for each pit is necessary.
If that instruction is to be religiously followed, it means that for a long time to come the burden of providing relief for unemployed miners who are out of work, notwithstanding that the stoppage has ended, will be a very heavy burden on the shoulders of the local authorities in the mining areas. As I have already said, this policy, if it is followed out, will be against the expressed intention of the leading members of His Majesty's Government, and I hope that state of affairs is to be remedied. Unless the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland are prepared to deal with the position in these mining areas, the future of our industry will be very dark indeed. The future of industry largely depends on that burden being lifted off the shoulders of local authorities in mining areas. The mining industry is still essential to the continued prosperity of industrial Britain, and unless that industry is placed on a satisfactory footing, it will be all the worse for the industries of the country. I hope that in the course of the Debate we will have a promise by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Health to assure us that this important matter will receive the attention of His Majesty's Government speedily.

Mr. RAINE: I have listened to the Debate on this subject, not only to-day but during the whole of this Session, and one fact more than another which has impressed itself upon me is that certain hon. Members are doing their constituencies an unconscious disservice by so continually calling attention to their poverty. Credit is a very sensitive thing, and if hon. Members only knew what other people were saying about the financial position of some of their constituencies to which they are so constantly referring, I think they would largely desist. I come from a constituency on the North-East coast, which has suffered at least as much as any constituency in England from unemployment. During the past four years, when shipbuilding and engineering have been so bad, we have had a host of unemployed and we have
never shouted about it at all. The guardians have carried out their work just as humanely as those in any other place, and we were in the position a very few weeks ago that we had to apply to the country for a loan of £1,000,000. That loan was subscribed in a very short time. I have no hesitation in saying that, had I got up as I was often tempted to do, to speak about my constituency as others have done, that loan would not have been so successful.
I may take another illustration from a neighbouring constituency, Newcastle-on-Tyne. Last week it issued a loan and it has been fully successful. All round the North-east coast area we have all suffered, but with this difference, that some of us suffered in silence, and some have done the very opposite. I am quite aware that, during the past few months, the position in many places has been seriously accentuated through the unfortunate coal strike, in some places more than in others. Here again we have been affected to the extent of many extra thousands of men being thrown out of employment, which has thrown an increased burden on the guardians. We have made no complaint, although the amount we have had to borrow is to be repaid in two or four years, I am not quite certain which. I believe the Minister will be obliged to take special notice of the peculiar circumstances of many districts which have been specially affected during the past two months in particular, and I have no doubt that, when he gets his statistics in February, he will show that practical sympathy with those various places which he has always shown when just cause has been given for it.
I should like to refer now to the question of block grants. As a member of a municipality for nearly 25 years, I have always advocated the block grant system. I have noticed in municipal administration that there is often a great desire to do work if the Government are paying for it, and very often we allow ourselves to be side-tracked because we are told that the Government will pay 50 per cent. or 75 per cent. of the cost of certain work, and, against our better judgment, we have given way, with the result that we have had increased burdens placed upon us. When the block grant
system is brought in, I believe it will be necessary to use a certain amount of discrimination between the poorer districts and those which are better off; but it will have this effect, that we will know in the different municipalities how much we are going to get and we will be able locally to control our expenditure better than we are able to do now. Many of the committees now are merely registration committees, because we get our orders from London, whereas, if we got a certain block grant, we would know what was coming, we would be better able to control expenditure, and to revise our expenditure more carefully. I believe block grants will make for more efficient administration in the locality and that, good as administration has been generally in the past, it will be even better in the future.

MANDATED TERRITORIES.

Captain BENN: I rise to call attention to some of the recent aspects of the attitude of our representatives at Geneva to the tenure of our mandated territories. We hold certain territories which are called mandated territories. We did not secure them by conquest, or as the spoils of war; we hold these territories merely as trustees. I observe that some members of the Government, particularly the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, in his speeches—although I cannot say that the phraseology that he uses is not capable of correct interpretation—appear to lay an emphasis where it should not be laid, and to conceal what certainly should be shown. These mandated territories are territories held by various parts of the British Empire in trust. Great Britain has some, Australia has some, New Zealand has some and South Africa bas some. These territories did not come to us by any treaty or right of conquest. We hold them as trustees. I would draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs to a speech which was delivered by his own chief this year, in which he said:
We hold Tanganyika under our obligations to the League of Nations.
That is perfectly true. But he goes on to say:
But we hold it in our own right under the Treaty of Versailles.
That, I venture to say, although it is susceptible of correct interpretation, because of its emphasis is wrong. We do not hold Tanganyika in our own right under the Treaty of Versailles. If you search the Treaty of Versailles from one end to the other you will find that no clause allots Tanganyika to the British Empire. The fact is that Germany ceded its overseas possessions to the Allied and Associated Powers; they did not cede them to us, and to say that we hold Tanganyika under the Treaty of Versailles is a wrong way to put it. Were chosen by the Allied and Associated Powers to be trustees of certain territories, and we are responsible for our trust to the League of Nations. That, I think, is the correct interpretation. The Council of the League of Nations is advised in its work of supervising the trustees of those territories by a body which is called the Permanent Mandates Commission. The Permanent Mandates Commission is not a Committee called into being by the Council of the League of Nations. I think it is the only body that is set up in addition to the Assembly and Council in the Covenant itself. Article 22 of the Covenant sets up this body, which is intended to be a permanent advisory body deriving its right from the instrument which created the League itself. It is a very important body, because it is the only impartial body dealing with these matters. I am not in the least bringing any charge against the Council of the League, but it is the fact that in the Council of the League the predominant influence is held by the great Powers, who are themselves mandatories, but in the Permanent Mandates Commission it is laid down by rules that the majority of the Commission shall consist of representatives appointed by non-Mandatory Powers. It differs in its character from the Council of the League and Assembly and gains an added dignity and importance from that circumstance.
The duty of this Mandates Commission is to receive and examine the reports which are made annually under the terms of the Covenant by the Mandatory Powers of the League. There is a Report, which was made to the Council of the League by M. Hymans, in 1920, which sets out the nature of the Report and
the duty laid on the Mandatory Powers to report to the Permanent Mandates Commission. He says:
The Annual Report stipulated for in Article 7 should certainly include a statement as to the whole moral and material situation of the peoples under the Mandate. It is clear, therefore, that the Council should also examine the question of the whole administration.
I want to emphasise this. The criticism we are making to-night against the representative of the British Government on this occasion in Geneva is that the views and wishes and desires of the Permanent Mandates Commission in the carrying out of their high duties have not been treated as they should have been by our own representative. The Permanent Mandates Commission made two proposals, or two suggestions. The first suggestion was that petitioners, desiring to petition against a Mandatory Power, should have direct access to the Permanent Mandates Commission. They also drafted a questionnaire. I do not think it was sent out; it was only a short questionnaire of about 21 questions. The longer questionnaire they desired to circulate. Let me say this about that questionnaire. I would first of all call attention to the passage from the instructions to the Mandates Commission in 1920:
The Annual Report shook certainly include a statement as to the whole moral and material situation of the peoples under the Mandate £ should examine the question of the whole administration.
To this end the Permanent Mandates Commission prepared their questionnaire, and I draw attention to a fact mentioned at the meeting of the Permanent Mandates Commission that the questionnaire, so far from being an instruction to harass local administration, may well be a very helpful thing. It was stated at that meeting by one of the members of the Commission that in 1923 our own representative at Iraq actually said that he was unable to make his report on the territory until he had received the questionnaire, meaning that from the questionnaire he was going to get the necessary guidance. There is therefore nothing necessarily tiresome or harassing about the questionnaire. It must be remembered that it has been the practice of the British Empire to send to the Permanent Mandates Commission the most distinguished men we have at the head of the admini-
stration to answer questions. The Under-Secretary himself has attended and replied. Sir Herbert Samuel has attended and replied to questions concerning Palestine, and Sir Henry Dobbs, attended this year and replied for Iraq. The Mandates Commission is compelled to rely on the written report and the cross-examination of representatives, because it has no local machinery by which it can gather information for itself. That it should have prepared the questionnaire is no offence in itself, and the "Times" correspondent, writing at the time when the matter was first raised in September last, said this:
It is difficult to see how the Permanent Mandates Commission is really to carry out its duties of control if it does not, ask every sort of question and lend an ear to any report which reaches it, but an interview between one member of the Commission and the petitioner would seem a more suitable method than a reception by the Commission itself.
That view has been endorsed by Sir F. Lugard. The questionnaire was prepared and approved by the Assembly.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for COLONIAL AFFAIRS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The new questionnaire?

Captain BENN: Yes. I understand that at the meeting on the 24th September, the Resolution put forward by the Permanent Mandates Commission received the approval of the Assembly. My information is derived from Press reports and other sources of information, but if I am not correct then perhaps the Under-Secretary will correct me. It has been the subject of examination by every Mandatory Power. Outside the British Empire there are three Mandatory Powers—France, Belgium and Japan—and I have here extracts from the replies made by these Powers. The gist of the reply of the Japanese Government is that the questionnaire is somewhat too detailed. The French Government says:
Although the French Government has no objection in principle to the adoption of the new questionnaire, it desires to state that it does not regard this questionnaire as necessary.
The Belgian Government says:
The Mandates Commission cannot give the Council effective assistance in its work of supervision unless the Council accords it wide powers of discretion as to the questions which it may think fit to ask the
Mandatory States.… It would simply note that the Belgian local authorities may possibly raise practical objections to one or other of the questions
Therefore, we find that as regards the other Mandatory Powers no serious objection is raised, but, it is left to our own representative, our own Foreign. Secretary, to go to the Council of the League and make a vigorous onslaught on the questionnaire—at least certain representatives of the Press who were present at Geneva, regarded it as a vigorous onslaught on the Permanent Mandates Commission for issuing the questionnaire. Why on earth should the representative of the British Empire take such action when we have nothing to fear? Our own Dependencies have been administered always in the spirit of trusteeship and our own Mandated territories are administered according to the highest ideals. We have had evidence of this in the House this week, for the Secretary of State moved an Amendment into a Bill giving a charter of native rights. Why, therefore, should our representative go to Geneva and be the first to complain against the action of the Permanent Mandates Commission in issuing this questionnaire? Some may say that it is amateurish and inquisitorial and that it is time practical people put a stop to it, but the Permanent Mandates Commission contains one of our most distinguished Colonial administrators in Sir Frederick Lugard.
Therefore, it certainly came as a surprise to most people to find no less distinguished a representative of this country than the Foreign Secretary himself taking the lead in an attack upon the authority of the Permanent Mandates Commission. Let me examine for a moment what this questionnaire is. Great play has been made with the fact that the questionnaire contains 230 questions. That number is secured by counting every note of interrogation as a separate question. I will mention some of the questions. There is a request for particulars as to public loans raised—
20. Is compulsory labour exacted in default of the payment of taxes?
27. Are the products of the mandated territory given preferential treatment?
34. Does the law inflict the penalty of corporal punishment, forced residence, and deportation?
4l. Importation of arms and ammunition?
44. Total expenditure upon the welfare of the natives?
46. Does the slave trade exist in any form?
53. Have they applied the Conventions of the International Labour Office?
This last is an extremely important question for an industrial country like this. We had a Debate on the subject the other day. We may be subject to the competition of products from native areas with badly paid labour and bad conditions, with which we cannot compete. The Permanent Mandates Commission asks a number of detailed questions about the labour conditions in the territory—
What is the character of the labour contracts?
What are the rates of wages?
What are the hours of work?
What disciplinary power is possessed by employers?
Are trade unions allowed in the territory?
The general policy relating to the education of the native?
Legal measures to suppress the liquor traffic?
Particulars as to public health?
And most important of all, as I think, Section (S), the Government's policy in reference to native land.
What proportion of the whole territory is native land and is granted to non-natives?
What control is exercised with a view to safeguarding the customary rights of the natives to such land?
and so on.
Will anyone who reads the questionnaire say that these are improper questions to be asked by a court which is charged with seeing that a trust is faithfully fulfilled? I think not. Certainly there is nothing that we can have to fear in answering any of these questions. It may be said that if we were the only mandatory Power it would be a mere formality to ask whether the interests of the natives were being protected. But this mandatory system does not necessarily begin and end with the seven mandatory Powers of to-day. It may well be that in future other Governments will be given mandates. I will refer to that later in another aspect. Suppose that the mandatory system is adopted as a way of tarrying what is called "the white man's
burden." It is extremely important that at the outset we should lay down the proper scope for the work of the Permanent Mandates Commission, which has to deal with the fulfilment of these trusts. In short, not to base the case upon detail, because, although detail is relevant, it is not really the gravamen of our criticism to-night—what we object to is that the mandatories should come together and present demands or suggestions, backed by the opinion of the Council, asking this court, which is there to see that the trust is fulfilled, not to modify the terms of the trust—that they cannot do—but to restrict their investigations of the method in which the trust is being discharged. That, indeed, is the criticism that we are making.
I know well the interest of the Under-Secretary in this matter, and, I think, his sympathy with the work of the League—in fact, the distinguished part which he has played on the Permanent Mandates Commission. I am not desiring to make any forceful attack on him. But it is a fact that there is a tendency in this. country to forget altogether that these territories are not part of Great Britain's estate, but that they are merely trust territories. You might have a rich man who has a large estate of his own, and he may be appointed guardian of a smaller estate. He may administer that small estate as well as he administers his own estate: he may administer it on the same lines and according to the same rules as he administers his own estate. But he has no right to say that it is part of his own estate, because it is not. He is the trustee merely. In our fiscal system, in our preferential system of taxes, we have done something which most people believe will divert the current of trade between ourselves and the mandated territories, exactly as some desire to divert it artificially between ourselves and the Dominions and dependencies. In that extremely ridiculous Measure called the Merchandise Marks Act we have required the natives in these trust territories to stamp their goods "British Empire made," which simply would not be true. The Secretary of State for the Dominions and Colonies is himself always trying in spirit, though he never oversteps the mark verbally, to
twist this conception of trusteeship into a mere sordid conception of Empire. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes; a sordid conception. Let me read what he said at the Imperial Conference. He was speaking of the dependencies as a whole, and he said:
The whole thing is a trusteeship, or a mandate, though the mandate is, in the main, not to an international Commission sitting at Geneva, but to what I believe is an even more effective body, the Parliaments and public opinion of this country and the Empire.
It is all very well to speak about a more effective body, but the fact is that we hold these mandated territories as trustees, and we have to answer as such to the League, and although any Minister must answer to this Parliament, the trust is a trust under the League of Nations. The right hon. Gentleman a year ago spoke words which were much criticised. It was at an East African dinner at which he said:
The German territories now incorporated in the British Empire.
That is simply not true. They are not incorporated, any more than a man might say that a trustee estate is incorporated in his own estate. No doubt, having been advised that these words were unwise, the right hon. Gentleman modified them this year, but without much effect. He spoke of "the incorporation of Tanganyika in the frame of the Empire." That little change was intended to get over the difficulty. If you are going to pervert the idea of trusteeship you put into jeopardy a great ideal. In the past the partition of backward countries has been a fruitful source of wars and dangers of wars. I need only mention the Fashoda incident, the Agadir incident and the Tangier incident. After the War we did declare a higher ideal. We said "No spoliation." It was laid down that the era of Imperial expansions was over, that what was taken was taken not as loot but as a trusteeship in the interests only of the backward peoples. It is our duty to see that this ideal is maintained. Unless we can maintain it, we lose the hope of a limitation of the causes of future wars. Because we think that the drift of the Government's policy, the speeches of the Secretary for the Dominions and the action of the Foreign Secretary at
Geneva, throw a shadow over that bright ideal, we raise this criticism to-night.

Mr. HILTON YOUNG: I do not know with whom my hon. and gallant Friend is quarrelling when he so vigorously maintains the principle of trusteeship as regards mandated territories. I certainly should not quarrel with him about it, because I accept the principle as he enunciates it, both in the letter and the spirit. We must all approach this most interesting matter which he has raised from the same point of view as he does, and that is with an earnest desire to promote the prosperity and the dignity of the League, and with the most firm determination that we shall observe our own obligations towards the League in respect of the mandated territories. But if he will forgive me for saying so, in the matter of this controversy—for controversy there has been between the mandatory Powers and the Mandates Commission—I do not think lie has put his finger on the real point. All the objects which we would serve, the prosperity and dignity of the League and the future of the great causes which it has to advance, must, after all, be viewed in the light of another great object, and that is the good government of the peoples of the mandated territories. I am sure there will be no difference of opinion if I suggest that there is an important condition in establishing the good government of these peoples, and that is that there should be no division of executive power. If there is one thing which leads more directly and inevitably than another to failure in government, it is any doubt as to the place of residence of the executive authority.
You may have several legislatures without doing much harm. You may have any number of judiciaries, and yet avoid confusion, but you cannot have any division of the central executive power without the gravest confusion, and if that be true in general, it is especially true in regard to such backward peoples as those who inhabit for the most part these mandated territories. It is elementary political wisdom that when you are dealing with backward peoples, particularly if they a-re Oriental or African peoples it is absolutely essential that there should he a clear authority. The hand holding the sceptre should be visible, and there should be
only one hand. If it be true that you can have no division of executive power if you are to have good government, I think there is another thing which is equally true, and it is that the League as an institution is quite incapable of exercising any continuous executive power at all. It is not, and cannot be an established executive body. It has not the necessary organs. The relations even between its two essential organs, the Assembly and the Council, are still too vague and ill-defined for it to be able to function in the manner which is necessary for continuous executive authority. It has no pretence to be an executive organisation, and one can think of no instance in which it ever has exercised continuously executive powers.
I suppose the instance in which it conies nearest to exercising any executive power is in the case of Danzig where it has a permanent High Commissioner, but on closer examination one discovers that the High Commissioner of Danzig is not an executive officer at all. He does not govern the city. It is governed by its own corporation and he merely acts as a moderator between the disputing powers the Poles and the Germans. If the League itself is incapable of exercising executive authority, still more so is the Mandates Commission of the League. I am not going to say a word in derogation of the admirable discharge of its duty by this most distinguished body in its own sphere, but it does not follow that it can successfully trench into other spheres which are not its own. It is a consultative committee representing many and various points of view which is quite incapable of exercising executive power.
Now we come to the application of these few observations to the proposals of the Mandates Commission in this questionnaire and the extending of its power to hearing parties on petition. I will not say much about the first point as to the questionnaire, in regard to which my hon. and gallant Friend has gone into some detail. In my view that is a comparatively trivial matter. I believe the questionnaire to be unreasonably elaborate, but I do not think there is any deep principle contained in the mere putting and answering of questions, however detailed. You may suspect that there is something behind these questions, but that suspicion may not be
justified. I do, however, find a very deep question of principle involved in the proposition on the part of the Mandates Commission that they should hear petitioners against the mandatory Powers. I cannot but think that the British representative was not only wise, but was following the course of direct necessity as the representative of a mandatory Power, in strenuously resisting a proposal to that effect.
See what would be the result. The result would be that the Mandates Commission would hale before it in the position of au accused party the Power which was exercising executive control over the mandated territory. There would be a litigation or rather a prosecution in which the petitioner, the subject, would be the prosecutor, and in which the mandatory Power, the governor, might be found guilty. It appears to me to be absolutely clear that you could not have a procedure of that sort without swiftly and inevitably destroying the whole executive authority of the mandatory Power in the mandated territory. Remember that in most of these cases we are dealing with Oriental or African peoples, and with their ideas of what sovereignity and of what a sovereign is. They will consider no nice division of powers between the mandatory Power and the Mandates Commission. They will attribute power and sovereignty to where they find it, and that will be, in the case of such petitions being heard, in the Mandates Commission. You will inevitably undermine the whole authority of the executive power in the mandated territory.

Captain BENN: Would the right hon. Gentleman permit me to say that in the letter of the Foreign Office of 8th November there is no mention of this question which he is raising and disposing of so effectively. That letter is solely concerned with the questionnaire.

Mr. YOUNG: A letter may have been written by the Foreign Office which is not concerned with this point, but this is the point, with which the House of Commons is concerned. You would effectively destroy the authority of the executive power in the mandated territory, inevitably and swiftly. Picture the scenes which would take place if petitioners were summoned from mandated territories to prosecute their cases against
their own governors, in the atmosphere of Geneva! I am a great admirer of that wonderful atmosphere, which has so many admirers, but I cannot think it would be a wholesome atmosphere for proceedings of the sort.
I contemplate another and even more dangerous possibility. Supposing there were some ill-conditioned Power—and one must contemplate such a possibility —which desired to give trouble to a mandatory Power in its mandated territories. What has it to do in these circumstances, but to spend its money and send its agents to the mandated territory to get up a petition against the unfortunate mandatory Power, which might find itself being prosecuted by mandated subjects from all parts of the world at the same time? These are possibilities we may not like to contemplate, if we have a good opinion of human nature. Nevertheless they are possibilities. It was and is essential to make a stand against any suggestion which would lead to a division of executive authority between the Mandates Commission and the mandatory Power. It appears to me to be quite clear from practical experience that this particular proposal by the Mandates Commission would lead to such a mischievous division.
As the hon. and gallant Member has said with great truth, it is most necessary to elucidate now, at the beginning, the respective powers of the Permanent Mandates Commission and the mandatory authority. I do not think that that is quite consistent with his own other proposition, if I did not misunderstand it, that there should be no criticism by the mandatory Powers of the Mandates Commission. Surely, if we are going to arrive at common-sense arrangements in this matter, we must be free to express our opinions. If we are to work out a common-sense basis for the relations between the Commission and the nations with the mandates, we must recognise, first of all, that the Commission cannot an are executive authority; secondly, that it cannot he a court of appeal against the executive Power; and, thirdly, that what it ought to be is something which may best be described as an invigilator, a watchman on behalf of the Council of the League whose weapon it is. In order to discharge their function as watchers,
they must, of course, have all the means of knowledge, among which there must be the receipt of petitions, but to pass on from the receipt of a petition to the hearing of that petition in a litigation between the petitioner and the mandatory Power is crossing that fatal border line which would had to a weakening of the authority of the mandatory Power and to the bad government of the territory in question.
This is a question of the most absorbing interest and the very greatest difficulty. Nobody can pretend that we have yet been able to work out precisely what the best relations between the Council, the Commission, and the mandatory Power are. The future has still got to show what these shall be through a long process of "cut and try," accompanied by a great deal of mutual forbearance between the three parties. The position is absolutely unprecedented in history. I do not think history bears any example of that responsibility of an Executive, not to its own sovereign, but to an international body. Of course, it must be new, because the international body is new. The nearest instance that occurs to me in history is that of the Commissaries of the people who used to accompany the Generals of the first French Republic in their campaigns and, report upon their proceedings to the various executives at Paris. Students of history will remember that those Commissaries may have discharged most admirable functions as long as they confined themselves to an advisory capacity, to admonishing, warning, and representing, but when they interfered with the actual conduct of the campaign they produced the most disastrous results. That instance contains a lesson for us.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I am sure we shall all agree with the dictum of the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young), who has just sat down, that there must be no division of executive powers, but, if I may respectfully say so, I think he has been largely engaged in trying to knock down a bogey which he himself has set up. It was certainly not suggested by my hon and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) that there should be anything in the nature of a division of executive powers. His criticism was directed to the importance
of keeping in the forefront of any discussion with regard to mandates the idea of trusteeship, and not allowing that to be pushed in any respect into the background. As the right hon. Gentleman has just said, we are only engaged now in clarifying a novel position, which the creation of mandates has brought into the world. I am afraid there is a great deal of misconception abroad as to the actual position, and, with the permission of the House, I should like to quote shortly from a recent article by Sir Frederick Lugard, which sets out so clearly and so briefly what the position really is, that that must be my excuse for quoting it. He says:
Mandates were granted to the various countries which hold them, not by the League of Nations as is often erroneously asserted, but by the Allied and Associated powers as victors in the War. The League of Nations became their agent, and was charged in the first instance with the responsibility of seeing that the terms of the Draft Mandates were such as to give full effect to Article 22 of the Covenant which formed part of the Treaty of Versailles. The conditions laid down in the several Mandates thenceforth became the conditions of its acceptance by the. Mandatory, which was responsible to the League of Nations for the fulfilment of its contract.
That, I think, clearly sets out what the real position is, and the main object which is common to all the mandatories is, of course, that the mandatory should administer the country as a sacred trust, in the interest of the inhabitants, and not for its own individual profit. That is the new idea and the high ideal that was brought into the world when these mandates were created, the object being to get, away from the spirit that had previously pervaded the world, to get away from any idea of making a profit out of the War, and to insist that what may have been the spoils of war were in future not to be treated as means of profit to the parties victorious in the war, but were to be administered by them as trustees for the whole of the world. The machinery that was devised for putting this into practice was the creation of the Permanent Mandates Commission under Article 22 of the Covenant. The Commission—I am quoting from the Covenant—was
to receive and examine the annual reports of the mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates.
I draw particular attention to those last words, which mean that the Permanent Mandates, Commission was set up to enable the Council to see that the trusts which had been placed in the hands of the various mandatory Powers were carried out in the spirit and with the intention of the Covenant. Now, I think, we come to what is really the difficulty that we have to face at present, and that we shall have to face in the future, and that is this: If the mandatory Powers were not on the Council, the position would be different from what it is, but, in fact, the chief mandatory Powers are members of the Council, with this result that when any questions come before the Council affecting the way in which mandates have been administered by a mandatory Power which is a member of the Council, that Power becomes placed in the position of both judge and counsel in its own cause. That is a very awkward and a very delicate position, and, therefore, it behoves us all the more to see that the powers and functions of the advisory body, that is, the Permanent Mandates Commission, are not in any wise circumscribed. They should be rather widened than circumscribed.
I do not propose to go at any length into the question of the petitions and the questionnaire, which have been dealt with by my hon. and gallant Friend. Exceedingly important questions they may be, but they are questions which are capable of adjustment, and I have no doubt that proper adjustments will be found. The Permanent Mandates Commission is composed of men of wide experience and eminent, ability, and it is not to be supposed that between them they and the Council will not be able to adjust such matters as are in difference between them, but what, to my mind, is far more important is the attitude that is adopted by the Council towards the Commission and the atmosphere that is thereby created, in which the Commission has to carry out its very delicate task. There is no doubt that the Foreign Office letter of 8th November has been fairly universally regarded as a snub to the activities of the Permanent Mandates Commission, and it has raised in the minds of many people great apprehensions as to the power that may be withdrawn from the activities of that Commission in future. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, there is a growing
tendency to regard mandates, particularly "B" mandates, as part of the British Empire.
It is true that they are, and may be, properly administered as parts of the British Empire, but that should not allow us to put in the background the fact that they are still trusts which we are administering as trustees. It is true that the duration of the trust may be an indefinite one, and probably will be, but that is always subject to the proviso that the trustee administers his trust properly. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to certain statements that have been made from time to time by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I know that when he made those statements, particularly with regard to Tanganyika, it was with the object of dissipating the idea that our tenure of Tanganyika might be a precarious one, so as to encourage the inflow of capital into the country. At the same time, I think he went too far in stressing the length of tenure that we may have over a mandated territory, without at the same time bringing into equal prominence the fact that that mandated territory was a trust, and had to be administered by us as a trust, and was not, in fact, part of the British Empire.
9.0 P.M.
It may be thought that we are unduly stressing this matter of trust. Personally, I do not think it can be stressed too highly, because it is on the due weight being given to that fact, that I think, will turn the manner in which the permanent Mandates Commission will be able to exercise its functions in the future. As has been said, Great Britain has nothing to be ashamed of in the way it administers Colonies, or in the way it administers the mandated territories, and we should be the last to hesitate to give the very fullest, information for which the Mandates Commission may ask. I go further and say, that we should take the lead, and show the way to other nations which may be a little backward and hesitating in giving such information. In fact, it will be our great justification in the eyes of the world that we are freely and frankly carrying out our trust in the spirit in which we undertook it. Our attitude should be to give the fullest and freest information to the one completely disinterested body which is charged with inquiring into
how our trust is executed. Any other attitude, I am afraid, is very likely to lead to very great difficulty and danger in the future, because we may have in the future mandatory Powers in an attitude of log-rolling towards one another. One Power may have failed in carrying out its trust, and another Power may at the same time be contemplating taking some action which is not strictly in accordance with its trust. If that were the case, it can be realised how easy it will be for those two Powers to combine so as to circumscribe the activities of the Mandates Commission and say, "If you do not want that matter brought forward, I will see that it is put back, if von do the same when our turn comes." We must avoid anything of that nature, and the only way is to give, when asked for, the fullest and freest information to the Permanent, Mandates Commission, and taking from the Permanent Mandates Commission advice, giving full effect to the advice that that one disinterested body is in a position to give.
With regard to the administration of the Mandates in Africa, I look upon them as vital in the future. I look upon the way we administer our trust in Africa as not only likely to key up our own administration, but to key up and improve the administration of all other European nations of African natives, and that is one of the reasons why I consider it of the utmost importance that the question of trust should be kept in the forefront. I should like to hear from the hon. Gentleman this afternoon an assurance that the true position of Mandates will, as far as the British Government are concerned, not be allowed to be in any way obscured in the future, and that the British Government, in their relationship with the Permanent Mandates Commission, will take up the attitude that it should be strengthened, and that its activities should be widened rather than circumscribed.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) and the hon. Member who has just sat down have been inclined in their speeches—with the greater part of which I am in entire agreement—to interpret the action and speeches of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on this
matter unduly harshly. Might I say that my right hon. Friend would have liked to be here to-night to speak him- self on these points, but, owing to a very long-standing undertaking to make a public speech in connection with his duties at the Foreign Office, he has asked me to reply on his behalf. When I discussed the matter with him, he said, "It is remarkable that all that I said at Geneva in very sincere praise of the work of the Permanent Mandates Commission was over-shadowed in the reports by an element of criticism," which he felt it necessary to bring forward not of the Permanent Mandates Commission or its work, but of certain new proposals which came up from the Permanent Mandates Commission to the Council.
May I say at once that in regard to one of those proposals—namely, the proposal in regard to the hearing of petitions, I honestly think that the hon. and gallant Member for Leith has been incorrectly informed in saying that the Permanent Mandates Commission asked the Council if they might hear petitions. They asked the Council for a ruling on the matter; they did not give a lead on the matter. The present rules of procedure and present methods adopted by the Permanent Mandates Commission were, when the Permanent Mandates Commission was first formed, submitted by them to the Council and approved by the Council, and the Permanent Mandates Commission themselves felt that before any change was made in those rules of procedure the Council should be informed, and that they should take the instructions of the Council to that effect, because under the specific terms laid down the annual reports have to be made to the satisfaction of the Council, that is the actual wording. Therefore, co-operation between the Council, however composed, and the Permanent Mandates Commission, however composed, is an essential feature of the working of the League of Nations scheme in regard to mandated territories.
Let me take this petition question first. I will not argue its merits. My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Young) has put a point of view that is present to many minds. Let me state what the position is. The Permanent Mandates Commission, when they had their meeting last March in Rome—not
at Geneva—found at Rome a self-constituted Syrian delegation demanding to be heard. The delegation were informed that under the rules of procedure, as they at present are, the Permanent Mandates Commission could not hear them, and one or two members of the Permanent Mandates Commission saw those individuals privately quite apart from the Commission. It was then felt by the Commission as a whole that the position must be regularised, and that, the matter having been raised by an event such as took place at Rome, they must seek for the instructions of the Council, and that is what they have done. The Council unanimously decided that before they proceeded further with the question they should hear what all the Mandatory Powers had to say one way or another upon that subject. The replies of the various Mandatory Powers have only just been received, and at the recent meeting of the Council at Geneva last week the Dutch Foreign Minister, the rapporteur on this question, suggested to the Council that the matter was important and should be postponed to the March meeting of the Council next year and that was carried unanimously. So the whole question of petition is still sub judice in the Council of the League, and it will be for the Council as a whole to go further into that matter in the light of the material now before them.
In regard to the questionnaire, I have one or two things to say. There has always been a questionnaire, and we have done our best, and so have all mandatory Powers, to base their reports as far as possible upon what is called the old questionnaire. The old questionnaire was, briefly, a series of questions which arise directly out of the terms of the several mandates. The Permanent Mandates Commission, in examining reports and examining accredited representatives of mandatory Powers, and in the discussion of those reports, have found that various supplementary questions arise, and they came to the conclusion that it might be desirable to set out an entirely new questionnaire. The British Government think that the form in which they submit the now questionnaire does require very careful consideration. Before the questions are detailed there is this paragraph:
Without asking that these questions should he necessarily reproduced in reports,
the Permanent Mandates Commission considers it desirable that the reports should be drawn up in accordance with the general plan of the questionnaire.
I have been both a, member of the Permanent Mandates Commission and an accredited representative taking reports for one territory or another for discussion before my former colleagues every year, including the period when the Labour Government was in office and my experience is that to attempt to base reports on the plan of the questionnaire will lead to very great gaps and very great difficulties; that a great many of these questions are the sort of questions which are much better put verbally to the accredited representatives of the Power rather than that the questionnaire should be adopted and that it should go out to, say, a country like the British Cameroons, going to all the officials who are preparing the reports in those countries, and that they should be compelled to formulate and to draw up their reports on this particular plan, answering question by question in a series.
Quite frankly, if I wanted a report about the government and the moral and material progress of the natives of a country, I would say to the Governor or High Commissioner "Give me a report on the territory—on all aspects of it." That we have endeavoured to do in the past, and to endeavour to draw up a report of any value or interest, that has any relation to actualities and to what is really going on in the territory, by year after year repeating answers to a set of questions, however brilliantly thought out beforehand, will give, I am convinced, a false picture of the country. I quite agree that most of these questions have been answered verbally, if not in previous reports, but there are certain new features in this new questionnaire which are very wide of the trusteeship, very wide of the terms of the mandate and very wide of the kind of questions that have been put hitherto.
Take question 11. It is a very detailed question about the Staff. It asks how many officials there are, how they are divided between central administration, technical services and district administration. It asks what is their origin, and their nationality; it asks what are the
conditions of their appointment; what is the status of those officials, and whether they are entitled to pensions, etc. All those are questions which can hardly help the Permanent Mandates Commission to decide whether the terms of the mandate are being carried out or whether we are failing to carry out our trust to the League. It is quite new questions of that kind that cause my right hon. Friend to ask in all seriousness the question whether this new questionnaire was not seeking to substitute, in some measure, an executive control, not over policy, but over the details of administration.
Another question was, If the territory has no armed forces of its own, what are the arrangements for the defence of the mandated territory? That arises in the case of the Cameroons and Togoland, which are the only mandated territories which have no military forces of their own. When we received this question, which is an entirely novel one in our experience, we were very anxious to ascertain what exactly the Commission meant. Then arose the question, defence against whom? Was it, to be against the French mandated territory in the event of a general war? That was an entirely novel kind of question.
Then take the question in regard to education. I say frankly that I have been puzzling my head about the question relating to education. It asks us to state the general principles adopted in regard to education, and to explain how the methods in use to illustrate the application of the different characteristics of those principles. The more you read that sentence the less "forrader" you get. They want to know the different methods adopted in different native schools, and how they illustrate the application of the different characteristics of these principles. Quite frankly, I do think that the Foreign Secretary was justified, in face of drafting of that kind in suggesting to the Council that this questionnaire should be reconsidered before it is sent out to every mandatory Power as the model upon which all future reports are to be based. Having visited all the mandated territories of Great Britain in Africa at one time or another, t know how difficult it is to compile reports of this kind, and I am convinced that it is essential, if we are
to provide the Permanent Mandates Commission with what they have a right to expect, that is the fullest and amplest information about all that is going on is the territory, that the particular plan devised by the questionnaire could be immensely improved, and I will say no more than that.
What has happened? The replies of all the mandatory Powers in regard to this new questionnaire have been received by the Council at Geneva, and last week they unanimously referred these replies to the Permanent Mandates Commission. The Foreign Secretary is most anxious that that should be done. He urged that before the Council takes any decision on this new questionnaire as to whether they shall or shall not accept it as the rule and procedure of the Permanent Mandates Commission, at least let that Commission hear what they have not heard, that is, one or two of the criticisms which I have ventured to put forward as illustrative; and only illustrative, of the general question.
May I make it absolutely clear on behalf of His Majesty's Government that we hope for the fullest co-operation with the Permanent Mandates Commission. We have never refused to give any information asked for and we have always found that the work of the Permanent Mandates Commission in regard to these mandated territories has been most helpful and suggestive. We have always found that it has been a real spur to the Government, and a real check upon anything of the opposite kind. One thing is perfectly certain, that if it is thought that the power is absolutely centred in Geneva then you undermine the sense of local responsibility and the working of the mandates system. It is not only the Colonial Office but every man concerned in the administration of every one of those territories that has to be kept in mind. Therefore, I do think that it would be most unfortunate if there was any contr versy on this subject. We accept absolutely the position, and I never heard it so briefly and so admirably and succinctly put as it is put in the quotation from Sir Frederick Lugard: We mean to carry out our duty to the League by the presentation of reports, sending a representative there to answer any supplementary questions and to co-operate in every way with the Permanent Mandates Commission. It is
not the Foreign Secretary's intention to snub them or attack them in any way, but only to suggest before officially adopting this new questionnaire in regard to carrying out their advisory duties that there are considerations which ought to be taken into account and should receive further reconsideration. It would be a real danger if inquiries became too meticulous, and it would also be a real danger if the broad trusteeship of the Government is not kept in mind, and if the Reports do not give a true picture of the general life of the territory, but are lost in a mass of meticulous detail repeated year after year, in many cases in report after report on the same case, without being of permanent value to the world.
In the institution of the Permanent Mandates Commission the whole world has an opportunity of seeing and learning, by expert supervision and review, of a large number of different cases. Consequently it must encourage the support of public opinion, of all parties, and of all schools of thought. It would be most unfortunate if the mandatory system were to become the subject of internal controversy in any country. As to the point with regard to sovereignty, where exactly the sovereignty in a mandate resides, no man has ever clearly defined legally. It is clear that Germany did transfer under Article 213 of the Treaty of Versailles all her rights to those territories to the Allies, who selected a manager who agreed, in acting as manager, to be bound by the terms of a particular trust. As to the relation between those territories administered under that trust and the actual position of the mandatory powers, these are embodied in the terms. Take Togoland and the Cameroons. We have power to administer British Togoland and British Cameroons as integral parts of the Gold Coast and Nigeria respectively. We have no such power in regard to Tanganyika, but in regard to Tanganyika we have power to found Customs Unions with neighbouring territories. I am glad the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) recognised that it is of the utmost importance for the future of those territories and the welfare of their inhabitants that there should be a sense of security and a sense that the mandatory Power has full executive authority undivided. That executive authority, I believe, is being
carried on according to the highest traditions and in accordance with both the spirit and the letter of the several mandates. We do intend, whatever the future form of report that may be decided upon by the Council of the League in consultation with the Permanent Mandates Commission, that Great Britain shall not be behind in doing its duty under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and negatived.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Llan-frechfa, Upper, in the county of Monmouth, which was presented on the 30th day of November, 1926, be approved."—[Captain Bowyer.]

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have no wish to oppose this Order. I rise for the purpose of asking the hon. and gallant Gentleman who takes the nominal position of representing the Ministry of Transport why it is that the House is deprived of the usual courtesy of the attendance of a representative of the Ministry of Transport? It is not good form in this House. I hope there is no illness and that nothing is wrong with the Minister of Transport or the Parliamentary Secretary. I would at least have expected one of them to be present.

Captain BOWYER: I can tell the hon. Member that it is not by any lack of courtesy that my hon. and gallant Friend is not here to-night but owing to this Motion coming on at an unexpected time, and owing to his having a public engagement elsewhere. He has asked me to take charge of this and I have been at pains to make myself acquainted with the contents of those Orders. I can assure hon. Members that they are purely formal and that there is no objection to them by anybody.

Mr. MAXTON: Last night, at this time, there were 10 Orders on the Paper.
The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) raised a. protest and suggested that there was an honourable understanding in this House that never wore than eight should be taken on one night. The Minister of Transport, who was here last night made a touching appeal to us to let the 10 of them go this once, as there would be no other opportunity for them being considered, and that decent people. in the various localities would be left without gas and electricity. The hon. Member for Gorbals responded to that appeal in the same spirit and withdrew his opposition. Now we find three more to-night. I want to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman representing the Ministry, in the unavoidable absence of the Parliamentary Secretary on another public engagement —which, after all, is secondary to the important duties the hon. Gentleman has to perform in this house; services to the country, after all, should come first—would it not have been fair to the House and in keeping with the honourable understanding if the 10 that were submitted last night and the three being submitted to-night had been halved as nearly as you can halve 13 so that we should have had six last night and seven to-night or seven last night and six tonight.

Captain BOWYER: I think the answer is twofold. First I can imagine that these Orders are taken as and when they become available from the other place, and by a process of time; and, secondly, it is important they should be taken from night. to night, because if they are postponed on any one night they might make to-morrow's ration, as it were, overloaded.

Question put. and agreed to. Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts. 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport cinder the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Prudhoe and part of the rural district of Hexham, in the county of Northumberland, which was presented on the 30th day of November, 1926, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport
under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the city of Truro, in the county of Cornwall, which was presented on the 30th day of November, 1926, be approved."—[Captain Bowyer.]

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope), pursuant to the Order of the House of 27th September, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes before Ten o'Clock.